Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home
JUDGMENTS
CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS
SERVICE TAX
INCOME TAX
VAT
FINANCE ACTS
FINANCE BILLS
EOU STPI
SEZ
DGFT
RBI
NTT
RESOURCES
GST


    
Email | Print

Important Links         SC  HC  CESTAT  ITAT  AAR

CESTAT RULINGS 2015

AIT-2015-08-CESTAT
NIS Sparta Ltd. Vs. CST, new Delhi

the appellant is providing training to candidates who intent to become Insurance Agent. - the training imparted by the appellants does not fall under the ambit of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994 as the training imparted by the appellant is having the recognition of law and covered under exclusion clause of Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, therefore the appellant is not liable to pay service tax at all.

AIT-2015-25-CESTAT
M/s Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. CST, Delhi

5 Member Larger Bench: Service elements in a composite (works) contract (involving transfer of property in goods and rendition of services), where such services are classifiable under “Commercial or Industrial Construction”; “Construction of Complex” or “Erection, Commissioning or Installation” (as defined), are subject to levy of service tax even prior to (01.07.2007) insertion of sub-clause (zzzza) in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994.

AIT-2015-48-CESTAT
M/s Lanco Infratech Limited
Vs. CC,CE & ST, Hyderabad

Larger Bench: (a) Issue (A):  Laying of pipelines/ conduits for lift irrigation systems for transmission of water or for sewerage disposal, undertaken for Government/ Government undertakings and involving associated activities like trenching, soil preparation and filling, supporting masonry work, jointing of pipes, electro-mechanical works or pumping stations and like activity, is classifiable only under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) for the period up to 01.06.2007 and not under Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service (ECIS);

AIT-2015-81-CESTAT
M/s. Shah Paper Mills Limited
Vs. CCE & ST, Daman

an assessee taking cenvat credit is not required to go beyond the cenvatable document to know as to how it has arisen. What input recipient is required to verify is that the supplier of raw material is genuine and proper duty is paid.

AIT-2015-130-CESTAT
Standard Chartered Bank
Vs. CST, Mumbai

Larger Bench: introduction of a comprehensive definition of “credit card, debit card, charge card or other payment service” in Section 65(33a) read with Section 65(105) (zzzw), by the Finance Act, 2006 is a substantive legislative exertion which enacts levy on the several transactions enumerated in sub-clauses (i) to (vii) specified in the definition set out in Section 65(33a); and all these transactions are neither  impliedly covered nor inherently subsumed within the purview of  credit card services defined in Section 65(10) or (12) as part of the BOFS;

AIT-2015-154-CESTAT
Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad

All the manufacturer-assessees in these appeals have availed benefit of deferred sales tax scheme and thereafter opted to pay the deferred tax in advance.  Amount paid was equal to NPV and not the originally deferred amount.  With this payment, total liability to pay sales tax extinguished.

AIT-2015-156-CESTAT
ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai

The classification of plastic waste and scrap, metallic waste, cloth waste (rags) are rightly classifiable under Chapter 3915.90, Chapter 7204.30 and Chapter 6310.90 and chargeable to duty on merits.  The valuation adopted and rejection of end-use certificates is liable to be upheld.  In view of above facts, the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be upheld.  Since the plastic waste and scrap is otherwise a restricted item under Foreign Trade Policy the same are  liable for confiscation. The order of confiscation of the seized goods under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act and imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is liable to be upheld

AIT-2015-158-CESTAT
Rainbow Silks Delta Logistics Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export) ACC, Mumbai

Larger Bench: Customs officers are empowered to invoke section 113(d) and 114 of Customs Act, 1962 in cases relating to export under claim for DEPB.

AIT-2015-171-CESTAT
M/s Gaurav Pharma Ltd.
Vs. CCE & ST, Rohtak

Five Member - Larger Bench- An appeal lies before this Tribunal against an order passed by Commissioner of Customs under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 for provisional release of the goods.

  


HOME ¦ Judgment ¦ Central Excise ¦ Customs  ¦ Service Tax ¦ Income Tax ¦ VAT ¦ Finance Act ¦ Finance Bills ¦ EOU STPI ¦ SEZ ¦ DGFT ¦ RBI ¦ NTT ¦ Resources

 

  Copyright © 2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments