Stay updated
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad has ruled that the assessee was aware of the chargeability of service tax upon the commission received under the head of Business Ancillary Services and had deliberately never disclosed the same in the monthly returns, thus the financial hardship faced by the assessee is no ground for non-payment of Service Tax, hence dismissed the appeal.
The CESTAT, Chandigarh set aside the demand confirmed by the Commissioner for Service tax on the basis of calculation sheet only. The Tribunal found that the appellants did not collect any service tax from their customers, substantiated by the absence of invoices and a certificate from their customer confirming this. Consequently, the Commissioner’s reliance on calculation sheets to establish service tax collection was considered …
The CESTAT held that, input tax paid for construction service used in relation to modernization, renovation of the existing factory is available as Cenvat credit
the Adjudicating Authority and held that, addition of non-active ingredients such as preservatives, would not change the classification of the product, if the active ingredients are ayurvedic in such case, the medicament is classifiable as ayurvedic medicament.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad has set aside the order passed the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that assessee provides works contract services by holding that, the services of general wiring, fitting thereof, are not covered under works contract services.
Cenvat credit can be availed on pre-fabricated shelters, towers and tower material which form an essential ingredient in the provision of telecommunication service
The CESTAT, Bangalore in M/s. Sun Microsystems (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU set aside the demand order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and held that, marketing, sales promotion, and technical pre-sales support service provided by the assessee to Indian customer on the direction of the foreign company tantamount to ‘export of service’.
The CESTAT, Mumbai in M/s. Hiranandani Builders v. Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai set aside the demand order and held that, the Revenue Department does not have authority of law to collect service tax on services provided by SEZ developer to units in SEZ within SEZ area.
The CESTAT, Chandigarh in M/s. M R Beltings v. Commissioner of Central Excise Rohtak set aside the demand order on the ground that the entire demand is barred by limitation since, the department was not able to bring anything on record to show that the assessee has suppressed the material fact in order to evade the payment of duty.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in Akshar Travels v. C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman ruled that, use of motor vehicle for transportation of school children is clearly different from rent-a-cab service, hence no service tax is to be leviable on transportation of children to and from school.