Cestat judgments - Page 10

No supply where an employee is seconded from foreign parent company in India

Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)

Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) The court observed that a similar issue arose before this Tribunal in the case of Volkswagen India (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, order dated 30-9-2013] upheld in 2016 (42) S.T.R. J145 (S.C) wherein this Tribunal held that the global employees working under ...

Read More

Relevant date for refund claim of Service Tax Paid under dispute

Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST- Chandigarh (CESTAT Chandigarh)

Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST- Chandigarh (CESTAT Chandigarh) The facts of the case are not in dispute that a dispute between the appellant and the revenue was going on whether they were liable to pay service tax on their activity or not on export of services for the prior period. The […]...

Read More

Cenvat credit eligible on service tax of commissions paid to commission agents

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries India Precision Tools Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Cestat Chennai)

The issue that arises for consideration is that whether the appellants are eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the service tax of commissions paid to commission agents in regard to sales promotion of their products. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi submitted that the department has denied the credit alleging t...

Read More

No Cenvat Credit on Capital Goods for which full Depreciation is claimed under Income Tax

Surya Alumex Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)

Surya Alumex Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Rule 4(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 do not permit CENVAT Credit in respect of part of value of capital which represents duty of amount on such capital goods or which the manufacturer or producer of output service claims as depreciation under section […]...

Read More

Penalty could not be imposed on sole proprietor along with proprietorship firm as it amounted to double jeopardy

Shahid Ali Vs Principal Commissioner Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi)

Shahid Ali Vs Principal Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Adjudicating authority had imposed penalty on the importing firm as well as the proprietor thereof which amounted to double jeopardy. The penalty could not be imposed against the sole proprietor of proprietor ship firm along with the penalty upon said firm. Held: Department b...

Read More

Credit cannot be denied on the basis of faulty investigation

Bansal Steel Power Limited Vs Commissioner of CE & ST, Rohtak (CESTAT Chandigarh)

Bansal Steel Power Limited Vs Commissioner of CE & ST, Rohtak (CESTAT Chandigarh)  CESTAT finds that in the statement of M/s. Adarsh Enterprises and M/s Gandhi Springs, it is clearly mentioned that they have not returned the goods but produced the ledger account. The ledger accounts are with the department, the department could have ...

Read More

Burden of proof for non-smuggled nature of seized gold lies on assessee

Deepak Handa Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) CESTAT Delhi)

Since assessee could not discharge their responsibility of proving non-smuggled nature of the seized foreign marked gold as per section 123 of Customs Act thus, the confiscation of the gold bars, gold coins and small pieces of gold under section 111(d) and section 111(i) was correct....

Read More

Rule 6(3A) proportionately divide the credit taken on common input services and credit attributable to exempted service was denied

National Steel & Agro Industries Limited Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise(CESTAT Delhi)

National Steel & Agro Industries Limited Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods (CESTAT Delhi) Rule 6(3A) proportionately divide the credit taken on common input services and credit attributable to exempted service was denied Conclusion: Rule 6(3A) can only be used to only proportionately divide the credit taken on common input serv...

Read More

No limitation period extension if no malafide intention to suppress & misrepresent facts

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Commissioner, LTU (CESTAT Delhi)

Even when an assessee had suppressed facts, the extended period of limitation could be evoked only when suppression‟ was shown to be willful and with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Commissioner had not recorded any finding that even if assessee had suppressed the fact of having received the amount, it was willful and with an...

Read More

Assessable Value to include Advertising & Marketing Costs, if relatable to Imported Goods

Volvo Auto India Private Limited  Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) (CESTAT Delhi)

Volvo Auto India Private Limited  Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Assessee was a distributor and was in the business of selling the cars which necessarily required them to deal with imports, pay taxes, promote sales, advertise, etc. These, could not be termed as expenses incurred on behalf of the foreign supplier al...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,690)
Company Law (7,672)
Custom Duty (8,723)
DGFT (4,626)
Excise Duty (4,527)
Fema / RBI (4,815)
Finance (5,183)
Income Tax (38,444)
SEBI (4,132)
Service Tax (3,778)

Search Posts by Date

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