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 is directed against the impugned order dated 14.6.2011 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are a registered service provider under the category of "Security Agency Service". During course of the Audit of their records, by the Departmental Internal Audit Party, it was observed that the appellant h
1. Appellants have files these two appeals directed against the impugned order dated 4.8.2017 passed by Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has partially allowed the appeal of the appellant and denied the refund of Rs.5,63,201/- on account of 'Diesel Consumption Charges' and 'Out of Scope Charges' by holding that they do not fall in the definition of 'input service'. Since the issue in both the appeals are identical and there is a commo
1. The present appeal is filed against the order-in-original No. JAI- EXCUS-001-COM-19-14-15 dt. 24.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur-I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the construction of Commercial/ industrial building as well as residential complex. The dispute in the present appeal is restricted to their tax liability with reference to construction of residential comp
1. The present appeals have been filed by the Department against the order in appeal No. 177 - 183 (SLM)ST/JPR/2015 dated 20.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee are engaged in providing the services of multi-level marketing business to M/s Tulip Global Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur by way of selling business to new members/ distributors in their downline and receivin
1. The issue involved in these appeals being same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as assessee and Revenue. 2. Brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker and is registered with the Central Excise Department. They are availing the facility of CENVAT credit of inputs/capital goods, input services. They construct
1. The present appeal is filed against the order-in-original No. 10/AKJ/CST/2014 dated 31.3.2014. The period of dispute is from 01.04.2007 to 29.02.2012. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is providing taxable service under the description “Security Agency Services”. “Manpower Recruitment Services” and “Cleaning Services”. The sole dispute in the present appeal is pertaining to the penalty cum du
Tax demand—Penalty—Assessee was engaged in business of assaying of gold ornaments and was also functioning as BIS authorized hallmark center—On verification it was seen that they had not taken service tax registration for their newly added 3 branches and assessee had not paid service tax due for period from April 2010 to November 2010—Accordingly show-cause notice was issued to assessee for period from April 2010 to Novemb
Commercial Training or Coaching Services—Tax demand—Assessee (PHFI) was registered with Service Tax Commissionerate for providing services under category "Commercial Training or Coaching Services" falling u/s 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act, 1994—Revenue by taking view that Service Tax was required to be paid by including amounts received as grant under category of Commercial Training or Coaching Service, issued Show Cause Notic
1. These two appeals by assessee as well as Revenue are against the Order-in-Original No. 10/2011 dated 13.05.2011. These appeals have challenged different portions of the impugned order. By the impugned order, out of total amount of Rs. 61 lakhs demanded in the show cause notice, the Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand of about Rs. 34 lakhs on various grounds and confirmed the balance demand to the extent of Rs. 26 lakhs. The assessee is c
1. After hearing both sides, we recall our earlier Final Order No. 57273/2017 dated 16.10.2017 where the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, for the reasons mentioned in the RoA Application. The appeal is restored to its original number. 2. With the consent of both sides, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 3. The present appeal is filed by the assessee-Appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. 117(VC)ST/JPR-I/2013 dated 06.09.2013
1. After hearing both sides, we recall our earlier Final Order No. 50013/2018 dated 02.01.2018 where the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, for the reasons mentioned in the RoA Application. The appeal is restored to its original number. 2. With the consent of both sides, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 3. The present appeal is filed by the assessee-Appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No. 19/BPL/2012 dated 24.09.2012 passed by
Construction of residential complex service—Construction of industrial and commercial structures—Maintenance and repair service—Tax demand—Assessee was registered with Service Tax Cell under category of ‘construction of residential complex service, construction of industrial and commercial structures’—During course of audit, it was found that in addition to sale price of individual dwelling unit, they had
Cenvat credit—Denial thereof—Adjudicating authority denied cenvat credit to assessee on grounds that, there was no nexus of input services viz. advertising agency service, air travel service, business support services provided by service provider, telephone and mobile service, service for making blueprint and charges paid for record keeping, health checkup, repair and maintenance, bank charges, with output services i.e. broadcasting s
Supply of tangible goods Services—Taxability—Assessee plea was that whether renting of bullock cart without bullocks was liable to service tax under category of supply of tangible goods for use—Held, supply of tangible goods” means any service provided or to be provided to any person by any other person in relation to supply of tangible goods including machinery, equipment and appliances for use, without transferring right
Commercial training or coaching—Vocational training—Nature thereof--Assessee was engaged in imparting training and coaching in various foreign languages which they claimed as vocational training and covered under Notification--Revenue’s case was that whether commercial training or coaching centre provides training and coaching of foreign languages such as French, German, Japanese, Spanish etc. falls under ‘vocational train
Mining of minerals, oil and gas service—Security services—Tax demand—Penalty—Assessees were registered as service providers under category of "mining of minerals, oil and gas services"—Department noticed that assessee had received security services from various persons but had not paid service tax on 75% of gross value of services under "Reverse Charge Mechanism" as per Notification No.30/2012-ST for period 1.7.2012
Tour Operator Service—Payment of tax and interest—Penalty—Revenue was of view that activity of assessee fell within definition of Tour Operator as per Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994—Accordingly, SCNs were issued to assessee proposing to demand Service Tax on amounts so collected by assessee under category of Tour Operator Service falling u/s 65(105)(n) ibid—After due process of adjudication, Service Tax was
Renting of immovable property—Tax demand—Setting aside—Assessees were running a studio which was let out on hire for production of film and TV serials for period 4/2007 to 3/2008—When renting of immovable property was brought within net of taxable services, with effect from 1.6.2007, assessee started collecting and remitting service tax on hire charges collected towards letting out of the studio for shooting—Departme
Outdoor catering service—Rent-a-cab service—Transport of goods by road—Input service—Eligibility for credit—Assessee availed credit on input services such as outdoor catering service, rent-a-cab service and transport of goods by road—These services had no nexus with output service of assessee and therefore were not eligible for credit—Commissioner (Appeals) allowed credit on these services—Held, ass
1. The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No. 09/AKJ/CST/2014 dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Service Tax, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in operating airlines and providing taxable service under the category of “Transport of Passengers Embarking in India for International Journey by Air Service”, classified under Section 65(105)(zzzo) of the Finance Act, 1994. I