CA Urvashi Porwal - Page 5

ST applies on C&F Agent Services despite non clearing from factory

Somani Agencies Vs CCE & ST, Indore (CESTAT Delhi)

In the case of Somani Agencies Vs. CCE & ST, Indore, it was held that the definition of clearing and forwarding agent nowhere requires the clearing to be effected from the factory and even if the assessee is not clearing the goods from the factory...

Read More

Intimating dept on adjustment of excess ST paid is only procedural

M/s. L & T Sargent & Lundy Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

In the case of M/s. L & T Sargent & Lundy Limited V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara, it was held that the requirement under Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to intimate the department regarding adjustment of excess service tax paid...

Read More

Pay ST demand in 30 days of order to get reduced penalty benefit

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Chandan Milk & Agro Products Pvt. LTD. (CESTAT Mumbai)

In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Chandan Milk & Agro Products Pvt. LTD, it was held that the benefit of payment of penalty of 25% of tax liability cannot be extended if the assessee has not paid the amount of tax, interest and 25% of the penalty within 30 days from the receipt of the order....

Read More

Cenvat Credit utilisation to pay GTA service Tax prior to 01/03/2008

M/s. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)

In the case of M/s. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held that the assessee can utilize accumulated Cenvat Credit to discharge the service tax liability towards GTA services prior to 01.03.2008. It was further held that the CENVAT credit cannot be utilised for discharging Service Tax on taxable service...

Read More

Service Tax Chargeable only on IPR Covered under Indian law

M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs CCE & ST (CESTAT Delhi)

In the case of M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, New Delhi, it was held that the onus to prove that the assessee was providing any exempted services is on department before invoking Rule 6 and further it was held that only such intellectual property rights which are covered under Indian law in force alone are chargeable to service...

Read More

Renting infra for ad display is not advertising agency service

Namrata Advertising Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik (CESTAT Mumbai)

In the case of Namrata Advertising Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, it was held that creating infrastructure, displaying the advertisement and collecting rent for such display will not fall under the activity of advertising agency....

Read More

No. of contracts for service completion not changes service nature

M/s SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs CCE, Raipur (CESTAT Delhi)

In the case of M/s SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. CCE, Raipur, it was held that merely because it had entered into four contracts for completing the scope of work would not take away from the fact that it was an operation of erection...

Read More

Physical brand embossing not must, to be called as branded goods

M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III (CESTAT Chennai)

It was held that a name or writing need not be a brand name or trade name in a sense it is normally understood. Even ordinary mark or letter is sufficient to indicate a connection between the product and the company. ...

Read More

Mandatory recovery of advertising cost should be included in AV

M/s Rathi Transpower Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)

It was held that that unless cost of advertising is recovered from the dealers mandatorily as a condition of dealership, the same cannot be added to the assessable value....

Read More

Captively consumed goods partly cleared to DTA to be valued u/s 4

Eastman Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Madura (CESTAT Chennai)

In case of captive consumption, the valuation would be done under Rule 8 and if same goods are partly sold by the assessee then such goods should be assessed on the basis of transaction value and duty to be determined as per Section 4 for each removal....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,692)
Company Law (7,673)
Custom Duty (8,724)
DGFT (4,627)
Excise Duty (4,527)
Fema / RBI (4,815)
Finance (5,184)
Income Tax (38,465)
SEBI (4,133)
Service Tax (3,782)

Search Posts by Date

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930