Service Tax Judgements

The Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide a non-speaking Order dated February 26, 2013 (“Impugned Order”) ordered pre-deposit of 40% of the demand under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made

The Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh after discussing provisions under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 (“the Finance Act”) read with Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 (“the Valuation Rules”), upheld the Order of the

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi after discussing Section 73(3) of the Finance Act held that as per the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, the SCN was not required to be issued when Service tax along with interest has been paid by the Assessee

By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the constitutionalvalidity of section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 234E seeksto levy a fee of Rs.200/- per day (subject to certain

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi relying upon the decision in the MPortal India case, held that the matter is squarely covered in aforesaid decision and therefore, the Appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on the invoices received prior to Service tax

Vide Order-in-Original dated May 31, 2013, Service tax demand of Rs. 30,59,07,287/- for the period April, 2010 to March, 2011 was confirmed along with interest, Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 49,25,935/- was disallowed and ordered to be recovered as

The Hon’ble Tribunal directed the lower authorities, especially the Deputy Director, DGCEI, Goa to defreeze the account forthwith by issuing appropriate instructions to the Appellant's bankers.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi after analysing Rule 2(m) and Rule 7 of the Credit Rules held that: - In the light of Rule 7 of the Credit Rules which provides the manner of distribution of Cenvat credit by ISD, the basic requisite condition for the distr

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi relying upon the decision in the Blue Star case and in the case of Paul Merchants Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh [2012-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-DEL], held that the Appellant has provided the service of procuring purchase orders for their f

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that there was no reason for the Department not to effect refund. The question as to unjust enrichment is before the Tribunal and all arguments in that regard would be considered by the Tribunal. In the absenc