Cestat judgments

The appeals are directed against the Order in Original No. 20/2013 dated 11.03.2013 as well as Order-in-Original No.66/2013 dated 07.11.2013. The appellant is a dealer of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (in short hereinafter called as “MUL”) in respect of the cars manufactured by MUL...

The SCN dated 01.12.2006 had also proposed demand of duty on the cotton waste which stands cleared by the appellant in the DTA. The SCN also proposed including the value of such cotton waste for re-determining the DTA entitlement. But the adjudicating authority dropped the demand of duty on cotton waste. Against such finding, Revenue is i...

Services being architect services does not fall under exclusion to the definition of input service as per rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, as the said exclusion is in respect of execution of works contract. ...

Arihant Udyog Vs Arihant Udyog (CESTAT Mumbai) As per the activity the appellant is only carrying out affixation of brand on the tools i.e. spanner by embossing/ engraving. This process alone does not amount to manufacture. As regards other processes which are carried out by the job workers, it prima facie appears that the independent [&h...

We are of the view that the ULIP surrender charges are not part of taxable service of management of funds. Rather it is in the nature of penalty or liquidated damages which is not a service and hence cannot be made liable for tax during the period involved . ...

CCE & GST Vs M/s Amar Lal Bhawani (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly, the provisions of Section 2(f)(iii) provides deemed manufacture definition only when the goods are labelled or relabelled or MRP is altered, which itself establishes the fact of a fixation of MRP on the goods. In the absence of any allegation of fixation or alteration [&hell...

15% discount extended by the broadcasters cannot be included for the purpose of charging service tax under the category of advertising agency from the clients. ...

M/s Poddar Pigments Ltd. Vs CCE, Jaipur (CESTAT Delhi) Courier services stand utilised by the appellant for sending the samples to their prospective buyers and for procuring orders from them. Ld. Advocate also explains that they are not charging their buyers for the said samples, though duty is being paid by them on the deemed […]...

As per the exemption Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005, there is a condition which is to be complied with by the service provider and as per the condition, the provider of taxable service has an option not to avail the exemption and such exemption once exercised in a financial year, shall not be withdrawn during the remaining pa...

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....