The purpose of this website is to facilitate Business to Business electronic commerce, i.e. selling products or services between businesses through the internet via an online sales portal.
The information contained in this website is for B2B e-commerce purposes only. The information is provided by [GST Online],a property of Wolters Kluwer (India) Pvt. Ltd. (WKIPL).While we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness,accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
In no event will we be liable forany loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.
1. The present appeal has been filed from the impugned order dated 13.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs Central Excise and Service Tax Indore. 2. The appellant herein is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacturing of D- Oiled Cake & Oil. For extraction of Oil the appellant brings oilseeds from Mandis or nearby villages to its factory. For the said purpose they engage the service of
1. The facts of the case are that the appellant have entered into contract with L & T. In case of L & T though the contract was consolidated includes service and supply of raw-material, but, the appellant have bifurcated the same into sale of material and service against the total contract value of Rs. 4.40 Crores only Rs. 33 Lakhs was shown as service and only on such amount service tax was discharged. The department is of the view that
1. Prof. P.C. Thomas, running a commercial training or coaching center, is the respondent. The Respondent has registered himself with the Service Tax and paid Service Tax from 07/2003. On verification of the financial statements maintained by the appellants, it was seen that the appellant has rendered commercial training and coaching services to another coaching center viz. Chaithaniya Classes during the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2005 by way of
1. This appeal has been filed by the M/s Sanghvi Travels in his confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the input was served a notice alleging that they have not paid service tax in the category of rent-a- cab services. Ld. Counsel pointed out that they are engaged in providing vehicles for going from one place to another and charging the customer on per K.M. basis or on Lump Sum basis b
1. The appellants, M/s. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd., are Custom House Agents (Customs Brokers) and are registered with service tax. Department issued a show-cause notice dated 6.7.2005 demanding service tax of Rs.75,21,12R/- under 'Agency Commission' received by them and Rs.9,36,466/- on the 'Brokerage Commission' received by them. The show-cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.01/2006 dated 23.1.2006 by Commissioner covering the
1. The brief facts of the matter are that Department of Fisheries, Government of Rajasthan are auctioning various water bodies for fishing rights to various persons for the purpose of aquaculture. By auctioning these water bodies certain amounts are collected by the Fisheries Department of Government of Rajasthan on annual basis. It has been the contention of the department of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur-I, that leasing out of water bo
1. After hearing both sides I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of alcoholic liquor and was doing the job work for M/s.United Spirit Ltd., Bangalore. The bottling of alcoholic liquor was conceived to be as a service provided by the appellant falling under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' and as such appellant deposited the Service Tax accordingly for the period November, 2013 to July, 2014, separately. However, su
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original dated 9.2.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai. The Commissioner has passed the following order:- “ORDER a) I confirm the Service Tax demand of Rs.81,64,644/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Six Hundred & Fifty Four only) as payable by M/s. Siddhi Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., under the provisions of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. b) I orde
1. The facts of the case are that appellants had removed over boulders / over burdens in respect of mines owned by Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. Department took the view that these are pre-mining operations and hence would amount to rendering of Site Formation Service. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issue of show cause notice dt. 28.09.2010 inter alia, proposing demand of an amount of Rs.1,72,136/- wit
1. Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing services under the category of business auxiliary service, fashion design and also received various input services like manpower recruitment and supply agency service, management or business consultant service etc. for providing the output service. They filed refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on 30.9.2013 seeking refund of unutilized input service credit to the t
1. The appellants are developers. They are engaged in joint development of land and building of residential /commercial complexes. They have undertaken projects in and around Bangalore and the projects were known by the name of 'Adarsh Esplanade', 'Adarsh Palm Meadows', 'Adarsh Palm Retreat', 'Adarsh Vista' and 'Adarsh Rhythm'. The Department alleged that on the verification of the records of the appellants, it was seen that they were providing t
1. The brief facts of the matter are that the respondent-assessee is registered with the department as a Service Tax assessee under the category of ‘Commercial and Industrial Construction services’ and ‘supply of tangible goods services’. The respondent-assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s. Aditya Cement, Chittorgarh for construction of Cement plant as well as for laying down the foundation of capital goods whic
1. Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing consulting engineering service. They filed refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the unutilized credit. Show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claim on the following four grounds:- • The assessee has not filed declaration with Deputy / Assistant Commissioner before export • Accumulated CENVAT credit pertains to period prior to regis
Cenvat Credit—Refund claim—There was unutilized credit balance which assessee could not used because rate of excise duty liable on final product was reduced—Assessee filed refund claim in respect of said unutilized credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules—Assistant Commissioner sanctioned refund to assessee—On appeal Commissioner (A) held that refund could not have been allowed in assessee's favour as same was time
Availment of Cenvat Credit—Assessee used inputs namely, Cement, angles, channels, Centrally Twisted Deform bar etc and other items used for construction of factory shed, building or lying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods etc used for providing outward service of Erection, Commissioning and Installation—Assessee claimed to avail cenvat credit for same—Lower authorities had held that credit on the
Demand of tax—Imposition of Penalty—Assessee was engaged in manufacture of machinery parts for sugar mills—Assessee was manufacturing various parts attracting concessional rate as also full rate, they availed Cenvat credit in respect of various inputs used in manufacture of both types of parts—Assessee, though they were intending not to avail credit in respect of inputs which had gone into manufacture of parts attracting c
1. M/s TLG India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) has filed appeal challenging order in appeal of Commissioner (Appeal) -1 Mumbai. Revenue has also filed an appeal against the said order. 2. Appellant had filed a refund claim on 27.09.2006 under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Service Tax by section 83 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994, claiming refund of excess service tax paid by them during the period October 2005 to Decemb
Tour operator Services—Rent-a-cab scheme operator Services—Management consultancy services—Demand of Service Tax—Assessee were issued 2 SCNs for same service and for the same period, however, in one SCN the demand was raised classifying the service as 'Vehicle Hire Charges' and in the SCN which was related to present case, demand was raised under rent-a-cab service—SCN which was issued for vehicle hire charges was dr
Transport of Goods by road/Goods transport Agency Service—Demand of Tax—Imposition of Penalty—Proceedings were initiated against assessee alleging that service tax liability in respect of GTA service availed by them had not been discharged—Show cause notice was issued to them, inter alia proposing demand of service tax with interest thereon and imposition of penalties u/ss. 76 & 78—Original authority v confirmed
Commercial or Industrial Construction Service —Demand of Tax—Imposition of Penalty—Assessee was engaged in rendering construction services— Department noticed that assessee was neither filing ST-3 Returns nor they were discharging their Service Tax liabilities on services rendered by them—Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand Service Tax for disputed period under category of Commercial or Industrial Constr