STO 2016 CESTAT 29 [Date of Order: 2016-02-08] |
Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Cenvat credit in respect of Security Services provided to the residential colony is not admissible. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 18 [Date of Order: 2016-02-08] |
Penalty: Non payment of service tax: Failure to discharge the service tax liability on account of financial crisis can be treated as reasonable cause for the purpose of Section 80. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 132 [Date of Order: 2016-02-04] |
Refund: Accumulated credit: Input Service: Prior to 01.04.2011 definition of Input Service was wide and it included all activities relating to business: Refund admissible. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 47 [Date of Order: 2016-02-04] |
Refund: Limitation: Appellants not required to pay service tax: Refund claimed of such tax paid: Limitation under Section 11B not applicable. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 21 [Date of Order: 2016-02-04] |
Refund: Output Services: Information Technology Service: Without questioning the credit taken, the eligibility to refund cannot be questioned: Refund admissible to respondents. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 1 [Date of Order: 2016-02-04] |
Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Credit on Sales Commission: An Explanation inserted in a Section/Rule, is generally to explain the meaning of the words contained in the Section/Rules. Sometimes, the Explanation may be inserted to clarify a doubtful point of law, which would be effectively retrospectively. In the present case, the expressions in the Explanation as inserted by Notification No. 2/2016-CX-(NT), dt.03.02.2016 (supra), make it clear that it is for explaining the meaning of clause 'sales promotion' in the context of Rule 2(l) of the Rules, 2004. It is to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the word 'sales promotion' in Rule 2(l) in order to make it meaningful and purposeful. The language of the Explanation is consistent with Board Circular to the benefit of the Assessee and it would be effective retrospectively. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 59 [Date of Order: 2016-02-03] |
Refund: Rejection on the ground that premises were not registered when the invoice for service was issued: Refund cannot be rejected on a technical ground. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 102 [Date of Order: 2016-02-02] |
Refund: Services used for export of goods: Limitation: Relevant date would be the date of receipt of consideration(FICR). |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 27 [Date of Order: 2016-02-01] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 2 [Date of Order: 2016-02-01] |
Personal Penalty: Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked by the Revenue for any aberrations by the assessee prior to 10.05.2013. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 32 [Date of Order: 2016-01-29] |
Refund: Unjust enrichment: Merely because amount was shown as expenditure, it cannot be said that burden was passed on: Certificate issued by Chartered Accountant was also required to be considered: Refund admissible as appellants proved that incidence was not passed on by them. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 11 [Date of Order: 2016-01-29] |
Non payment: Revenue Neutral: Cenvat Credit admissible: When the appellant can take credit and utilize it further for the payment of tax, naturally they would not get any benefit by not paying such a tax and attract penal provisions of the law: Extended period could not have been invoked. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 76 [Date of Order: 2016-01-28] |
Cenvat credit: Credit denied on the suspicion that amount of commission paid to sub brokers is more than amount received by the appellants as commission: There is no evidence to elevate such suspicion to a level to come to an inference that the higher commission (than the commission received by the appellant) was paid to sub-brokers in respect of goods other than the goods for which it received commission from its clients. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 26 [Date of Order: 2016-01-28] |
Penalty: Non Payment of Service Tax: Service tax on hiring of machines collected from some customers, not deposited with Government Exchequer: Contention that Supply of Tangible Goods service was new not acceptable: Penalty rightly imposed. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 5 [Date of Order: 2016-01-28] |
Banking & Other Financial Services: Credit Card Service: Banks retaining certain amount payable to merchants: Such amount cannot be treated as charges collected by banks from credit card holders: Larger Bench decision covers the issue in favour of appellants. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 146 [Date of Order: 2016-01-27] |
Refund: Rule 5 of CCR, 2004: Input Services: Period involved is prior to 01-04-2011 when the definition of input services had a wide ambit covering all most all services relating to business of manufacture/providing of output services. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 58 [Date of Order: 2016-01-22] |
Penalty: It is not in dispute that the service tax along with interest was paid immediately on pointing out by the department: Section 73(3) no notice should have been issued: Penalty set aside. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 54 [Date of Order: 2016-01-21] |
Cenvat credit: Appellant is entitled to take credit for payment of outward transportation of goods. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 51 [Date of Order: 2016-01-21] |
Penalty: Liability under reverse charge mechanism: Entitlement to cenvat credit: Revenue neutrality: No penalty imposable. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2016 CESTAT 30 [Date of Order: 2016-01-21] |
Refund: Export of services not in dispute: One to one co-relation not must: Remittances received in lumpsum cannot be the reason to deny the refund: Period prior to 2011 when definition of “input service” was wide, hence, all services covered. |
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|