The Hon’ble HC, Madras in the matter of GE T & D India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise [W.P. Nos. 35728 to 35734 of 2016 and WMP. Nos. 30704 to 30710 of 2016 dated November 7, 2019] held that service tax is not leviable on the paym
Whether handling portion and maintenance including incineration facilities by one party on behalf of another is in the nature of providing 'Storage and Warehousing Services' falling under Section 65(105)(zza) of the Finance Act, 1994 (“the Finance Ac
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Bangalore held that although there is no specific 'relevant date' under Section 11B of the Excise Act to claimrefund of unutilized credit, but, that would not rule out applicability of Section 11B. Relevant date should be the date
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that reimbursement of the cost of obtaining and employing resources/certain expenses incurred by the Appellant on the behalf of the Group Companies cannot be regarded as consideration flowing to the Appellant towards t
The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held as under: The ‘Governmental authority’ as defined in the Notification dated January 30, 2014, means an authority or a board or any other body set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature; The provisio
The transaction in question qualified as a transfer of right to use goods and, consequently, be outside definition of ‘service’ under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act and no Service tax could be levied on such transaction.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai heard both sides and observed the contention submitted by the Appellant that unless the commercial complex is constructed and completed in all respects, the same could not be rented out by the Appellant is a common sense.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the plethora of judgments and by observing various provisions in this regard, held that in the instant case, buyer has borne risk of damage to goods during transit and freight charges were an integral part o
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Allahabad relying upon plethora of judicial pronouncements held that in the instant case, BSNL has already paid Service tax on the SIM cards and recharge coupons sold to the Appellant and therefore, again demanding Service tax fro
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that a service recipient can only see the Cenvatable document under which Service tax paid/ payable has been indicated. However, it is not the case of the revenue that the service provider does not exist. Hence, th