Excise Duty : T. T. Recycling Management India Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as applicant) is a resident Private Limited Company...
Excise Duty : It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of PET Chips. The applicant now intends to start a new business whereby the applicant i...
Excise Duty : Nucleus Device is classifiable under Tariff Entry 85176290 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 as Machines...
Excise Duty : The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2011. Being dissatisfied with the dism...
Excise Duty : In the instant case, the applicant has submitted that the tag is applied by them while placing the jewellery in the box to preven...
It was held that for claiming the exemption of excise duty on ayurvedic product, there is no condition that the product to be sold exclusively in the name mentioned in the textbooks. The mention of the house name/ brand-name cannot lead to the conclusion that these products are not sold in the name specified in Ayurvedic text and accordingly exemption is applicable.
It was held that the activity of placing various food items, prepared by the appellants as well as various bought out readymade items, in a tray either at the time of placing the tray in the trolley or at the time of serving the passengers on board does not amount to manufacture of a new commodity as contemplated under section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly the excise duty cannot be demanded on the total value of manufactured and bought products placed in the tray.
The appellant has contended that the primary adjudication order claimed have to be sent by speed post was not received by it and when it received copy thereof, it filed the appeal within the prescribed period.
It was held that in case of mandap keeper service, the catering charges (cost of buffet dinners) was not entirely excludable from the assessable value and therefore the appellant was eligible only for the benefit of abatement of 40% as per Notification No.12/2001-ST, dated 20.12.2001.
It was held that service tax is not payable on the notional interest accrued on the security deposit received on providing immovable property on rent.
It was held that In case of amalgamation of companies appointed date as per Amalgamation Scheme is required to be taken as the date of amalgamation and not the date on which entire formalities were completed and the service provided by assessee from the appointed date to Amalgamating Company is to be considered as provided to self, in which case, no service tax liability would arise against them.
It was held that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, otherwise there would be no situation for which ordinary limitation period would apply.
Marketing and promotion services: Applicant proposes to engage in promotion and marketing of GoDaddy US services in India. This would essentially include increasing the awareness of services provided by GoDaddy US and establishment of the brand GoDaddy in India.
It is observed that in this case, provider of service i.e. the applicant, is located in India, which is the taxable territory; recipient i.e. GoDaddy US is located in USA; the service to be provided by the applicant i.e. business support services is not specified under Section 66 D i.e. Negative List Services;
The question is very simple and clear as to whether the sale of the books to the Indian entities involves any ‘service’ and would attract the service tax liability. The answer is clearly in negative. It is therefore, hold that this service does not entail and invite any liability for service tax.
