Stay updated
The CESTAT, Chandigarh, in M/s Kumar Builders v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax set aside the demand order and held that transportation of ash to disposal area would not equate to cleaning services, it is mere transportation and disposal of ash, which falls outside the ambit of definition of cleaning services.
The department issued a show cause notice alleging that the appellant ( KPT) provided service under the category of Port service to Essar under a contract and undervalued the services to the extent of 48.57 % of the actual standard rates notified by the appellant.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in M/s Panoli Enviro Technology Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, SURAT-II held that the effluent does not qualify to be a ‘good’ as per the Sales of Goods Act and as per definition of GTA only the transportation of ‘goods’ is covered under GTA service. Thus, transportation of effluent by GTA is out from the ambit of service tax.
The CESTAT, Chennai in M/S. Hotel Shreelekha Regency Limited [Service Tax Appeal No. 40073 of 2014 dated July 14, 2023] set aside the order demanding service tax on rental property and held that, income received from rent by assessee is…
The CESTAT, Chandigarh, in PNC Infratech Ltd. v. Custom & Central Excise, Ludhiana [Service Tax Appeal No. 1164 of 2011 dated July 04, 2023] set aside the demand of service tax on the amount received from National Highway Authority of…
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner Central Excise Delhi I v. SOTC Travels Services Private Limited dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue Department by relying on the judgement wherein it was held that the Performance linked bonus (“PLB”) and Computer reservation service (“CRS”) fees received by airline agents are not subject to service tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ (“BAS”).
The CESTAT, Mumbai in Konkan Railway Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax set aside the order passed by the Commissioner by observing that assessee is ‘a deemed to be a railway company’ under the provision of Indian Railways Act, 1890 and since Indian railways was exempt from payment of service tax no service tax liable on the assessee.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in M/s. Aegis Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-I held that services which were consumed outside India, the out of scope of service tax and any tax paid by assessee on such services should be refunded.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in United India Shipping Services v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise set aside the order confirming demand on expenses like deconsolidation charges, transportation charges, DO charges which are first collected by the assessee from their clients and thereafter paid to the service provider.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in Sowar Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax [Final Order No. 50607 Of 2023 dated March 29, 2023] held that assessee has not received any consideration for providing corporate guarantee and hence no service tax…