Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST, Mumbai Central (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case demand was raised from the input service distributor who has distributed the service credit to their respective factory on the ground that the input service viz. air travel agent service, is not admissible as the service related to business activity […]
Penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed only on the natural individual person and not on the artificial person or company because the goods is handled by natural living person and not by an artificial entity.
Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant M/s S.S. Engineers are engaged in the sale of own manufactured goods and also engaged in trading of bought out items which are used in erection, installation and commissioning of Sugar Plant and other goods falling under chapter 84 of the First schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Fees collected by the police department is in the nature of fee prescribed for performing statutory function, which has been deposited into the Govt. treasury. In the light of the C.B.E. & C. ‘s circular also, there can be no levy of service tax on such activities carried out by the police department.
Shri S.S. Gupta, Learned Chartered Accountant, appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that the construction of hospital building does not fall under the ‘commercial or industrial construction service’ for the reason that the hospital building is not used for commerce or industry as the hospital in the present case is run by a charitable trust. For this reason also the charitable trust is not a business or commerce hence the construction thereof does not fall within the definition of commercial or industrial construction service
The input service credit on insurance is denied on the ground that these insurance has been taken for the family members of the employees which is in nature of perquisites. I do agree with the finding of the lower appellate authority as the insurance of family members of the employees has no concern with the business of manufacturing of the appellant.
Arihant Udyog Vs Arihant Udyog (CESTAT Mumbai) As per the activity the appellant is only carrying out affixation of brand on the tools i.e. spanner by embossing/ engraving. This process alone does not amount to manufacture. As regards other processes which are carried out by the job workers, it prima facie appears that the independent […]
The Brand promotion fee was not taxable until Negative list came into effect from 01.07.2010 and hence there cannot be any liability upon the Respondent till that period.
They provide the SMS Aggregator services to M/s Facebook under an agreement for which the bills were raised to M/s Facebook, Ireland and the amount was received in convertible foreign currency. They filed four refund applications towards refund of unutilized cenvat credit of input services used for export of services in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Mumbai) This is an appeal has been filed by the appellants against denial of credit of service tax in respect of services provided to their job workers while doing their job work. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that they were operating in Rule 4(5) of Cenvat […]
