Follow Us:

CESTAT Mumbai

No bar on utilization of Accumulated cenvat credit to pay ST on services on which abatement is claimed

January 15, 2013 802 Views 0 comment Print

CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH B.E. Billimoria & Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Application No. ST/S/729 of 2012 Appeal No. ST/211 of 2012 June 5, 2012 ORDER Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member   Appellant are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the service tax demand of Rs. 14,28,30,465/- along with interest and equivalent penalty […]

‘Courier service’ is input service, if ownership of goods remains with sender till delivery

January 9, 2013 3100 Views 0 comment Print

‘Courier service’ is input service, if ownership of goods sent remains with sender till delivery to customer & courier charges form part of goods sent

Duty on Steel items used in fabrication of storage tank eligible for input credit

January 8, 2013 2978 Views 0 comment Print

As per explanation to Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, storage tanks have been specified as capital goods and, therefore, inputs which are used in the manufacture of capital goods are also eligible for CENVAT credit. It is not in dispute that the steel items such as M.S. angles, H.R. sheets have not been used in the construction of storage tank which is a capital goods therefore, CENVAT credit on these M.S. angle and H.R. Sheet cannot be denied.

Service tax on Security charges of River Water Pumping Unit used as coolant in manufacturing are input services

January 1, 2013 663 Views 0 comment Print

There is also no dispute as to the fact the water pumped from river Kundalika is used as a coolant in the manufacturing process. If that be so, the pumping of water from the banks of river Kundalika is integrally connected to the manufacturing process and the security services used therein becomes an input service in terms of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Input credit cannot be denied on mere procedural grounds

December 18, 2012 1122 Views 0 comment Print

Tribunal has held that although the documents are not in the name of the assessee’s factory but same are in the name of the head office of the assessee and there is no dispute about the input service received by the assessee. Therefore, substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds.

CESTAT directs dept to consider reconciliation of difference between ST-3 & Balance Sheet figures

December 1, 2012 9248 Views 0 comment Print

Service Tax dispute: S.S. Construction vs Commissioner of Central Excise. Remanded for reconsideration. Balance-sheet vs ST-3 Returns. Get details on TaxGuru.in.

Service in relation to IPL sponsorship not liable to service tax for period prior to 1-7-2010

November 28, 2012 1993 Views 0 comment Print

As per Section 65(105)(zzzn) the activity undertaken by the applicant is a sponsorship activity but same is specifically exempt if same is undertaken in relation to sponsorship of the sports events. The above said activity came into taxable event with effect from 1.7.2010 when an exemption for sponsorship of sports event has been withdrawn.

Services not in the course of business of manufacturing are not entitled to input credit

November 28, 2012 2728 Views 0 comment Print

After examining the records, I am of the view that the services in relation to Convention services, Memberships of Clubs & Association Services, Health Club & Fitness Centre Services and House Keeping services are not entitled for input service credit.

Income from sale of abandoned cargo by a custodian of goods not liable to Service tax

November 23, 2012 1807 Views 0 comment Print

The counsel for the appellant submits that in Board’s Circular No. 11/1/2002-TRU dated 01/08/2002 it has been clarified that Service Tax is not leviable on the activities of the custodian when he auctions abandoned cargo and VAT/ST is paid in respect of such cargo.

Water supply project not coverd under Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services

November 23, 2012 1688 Views 0 comment Print

Water supply project is an infrastructure facility and a civic amenity which the State provides in public interest and not an activity of commerce or industry. Therefore, the appellants are not covered under the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services.” Following the precedent decision in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the activities undertaken by the appellants does not cover under the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services. Accordingly, we set aside the demand on this account in the impugned order.

Search Post by Date
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031