Service Tax Judgements

The issue involved in the matter is that whether the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 is applicable to the facts of this case or not?

Both the assessee and the Department are in appeal against the impugned de novo Order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the learned Commissioner, Central Excise, Dibrugarh, whereby the demand of Service Tax of Rs.2,63,36,665/- has been confirmed under the c

The Hon’ble HC, Madras in the matter of GE T & D India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise [W.P. Nos. 35728 to 35734 of 2016 and WMP. Nos. 30704 to 30710 of 2016 dated November 7, 2019] held that service tax is not leviable on the paym

Whether handling portion and maintenance including incineration facilities by one party on behalf of another is in the nature of providing 'Storage and Warehousing Services' falling under Section 65(105)(zza) of the Finance Act, 1994 (“the Finance Ac

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Bangalore held that although there is no specific 'relevant date' under Section 11B of the Excise Act to claimrefund of unutilized credit, but, that would not rule out applicability of Section 11B. Relevant date should be the date

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that reimbursement of the cost of obtaining and employing resources/certain expenses incurred by the Appellant on the behalf of the Group Companies cannot be regarded as consideration flowing to the Appellant towards t

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held as under: The ‘Governmental authority’ as defined in the Notification dated January 30, 2014, means an authority or a board or any other body set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature; The provisio

The transaction in question qualified as a transfer of right to use goods and, consequently, be outside definition of ‘service’ under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act and no Service tax could be levied on such transaction.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai heard both sides and observed the contention submitted by the Appellant that unless the commercial complex is constructed and completed in all respects, the same could not be rented out by the Appellant is a common sense.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the plethora of judgments and by observing various provisions in this regard, held that in the instant case, buyer has borne risk of damage to goods during transit and freight charges were an integral part o