Revenue has demanded the Service Tax on the renting of trucks under the head of Supply of Tangible Goods Service. As per the facts of the case which is not in dispute, we note that the appellant have given the trucks to the lessees on monthly rental charges. The appellant did not provide any facility such as driver, repair and maintenance, fuel etc. Once the truck is rented out the entire possession and control is of the lessees and during the renting period there is no interference of the appellant.
Learned AR argued that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted Notification No. 21/2002 by construing that Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) is a road construction corporation under the control of the State Government.
It has been argued that they are using service of M/s Dialogue Corporation, USA for the purpose of data storage. It has been argued that the said service provider does not provide online services and there is no online service provider. In absence of online database access, no Service Tax can be demanded under the head of Online Database Access and Retrieval Service.
Prospectus is only for the purpose of screening of students by way of Admission Screening Examination and is not a part of the services. The student only by filling of prospectus does not become entitled to get coaching from the Appellant.
These appeals are directed against Order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, whereby Ld. Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lacs under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 on CHA, M/s. Daroowala Brothers and Company and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs on Shri. Pervez Irani.
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
