Sale of banking software to a bank was ‘commercial exploitation’ merely because the bank deployed the software in its normal business activities was not correct in the absence of facts that establish otherwise or of any evidence that such was the transaction between assessee and the customers, therefore, demanding service tax on the same was not justified.
Milk crumb was marketable and hence assessee-cadbury was liable to pay excise duty for clearing goods without payment of duty as revenue neutrality could never be ground for not demanding the duty on the excisable goods in the form and manner they were being cleared by assessee.
The issue involved is whether the appellants are liable to pay Service Tax on the rent received by them for allowing the harvesting contractors to use the Appellant’s bullock carts with tyres without any bullocks or driver for transporting the sugarcane to the sugar factories?
The issues involved in this Appeal is whether GTA service is entitle as an input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 even after 1.4.2008 on FOR sales i.e. delivery upto the factory gate of the customers, which, according to Revenue, was beyond the place of removal?
Service Tax – Irrespective of the person who maintains canteen in a factory, exemption as per Entry 19A of 25/2012-ST is available to such person – Benefit cannot be whittled down by restricting it to factory owner alone: CESTAT
The purpose of compounding of offences against payment of compounding amount is to prevent litigation and encourage early settlement of dispute. In the guidelines issued vide Circular No. 15/10/2009 no prohibition has been imposed against deciding the application for compounding
CESTAT Mumbai allows Cenvat Credit on renting immovable property for marketing and sales promotion. Pre and post-amendment period covered. Appeal allowed.
Issue under consideration is that whether the Appellants are entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on the input service viz. event management service?
The issue involved in the matter is whether the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on ‘Tour Operator Service’ used for pick-up and drop of employees of the Appellant to and fro Andheri and Kurla to their office premises is admissible as ‘input service’ under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be imposed for mere default/delay in payment of Service Tax in addition to the penalty under Section 78 and these penalties are mutually exclusive and even if offences are committed in the course of same transaction or arise out of same act, penalty is imposable for ingredients of both offences.
