Advanced Search Results

M/S. National Construction Company Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

03/3/09 by which the Commissioner - (a) confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 1,63,14,265/- under proviso to Section 73 (1) of Finance Act, 1994 alongwith interest thereon under Section 75 ibid ; (b) imposed penalty of Rs. … the activity of the appellant was taxable as cargo handling service under Section 65 (105) (Zr) of the Finance Act, 1994 till 15/06/05 and thereafter from 16/06/05 to 31/05/07 their activity was taxable as site formation and clearance, … and Allied Services Ltd. vs. CCE, CUS and ST, BBSR reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 531 (Tri. Kolkata), wherein the Tribunal held that cargo, in

M/S Sigpack Associates vs the Commissioner,

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

BPCL are classifiable under the category of 'Works Contract Service' under the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994? -5-(b) Whether the tax not paid/levied is recoverable under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994?(c)

Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs M/S Gac Shippi ...

Court : Kerala

a few different ports in India. The services rendered by the assessee fall under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Department is in appeal against the final order dated 31.10.2016 in ST/216 … /2016 /2018 dt.22.10.20 23.08.2006 in dt.20.02. dated 26.03.20 dt.31.10. 05; 2000- No.ST/315/200 2008 29.06.2009 12 2016 01 to 2004- 6 dt. in 05 25.10.2007 ST/216/200 … whether the show-cause notice for extended limitation period is justifiable under any one of the circumstances covered by Section 73 of the Act. Alternatively, -7- whether the period of five-year limitation is attracted to the case or not.

Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs M/S.Gac Shippi ...

Court : Kerala

a few different ports in India. The services rendered by the assessee fall under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Department is in appeal against the final order dated 31.10.2016 in ST/216 … /2016 /2018 dt.22.10.20 23.08.2006 in dt.20.02. dated 26.03.20 dt.31.10. 05; 2000- No.ST/315/200 2008 29.06.2009 12 2016 01 to 2004- 6 dt. in 05 25.10.2007 ST/216/200 … whether the show-cause notice for extended limitation period is justifiable under any one of the circumstances covered by Section 73 of the Act. Alternatively, -7- whether the period of five-year limitation is attracted to the case or not.

Maganti Rama Rao Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad-iii ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Subject : Service Tax

appellant that the department gathered the relevant information. This happened during the period from September 2006 to December 2008. The show-cause notice was issued in January 2009 invoking the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, … Rs.1,96,184/- (ST-192161+E.Cess-4022) as detailed in Annexure-I to this order, towards service tax not paid under Section 66 of Finance Act, 1944. I further, appropriate the amount of Rs.1,96,184/- from the amount already paid i.e., Rs.3,69,459/- paid by the

Computer Access Pvt.Ltd., vs the Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Chennai

Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, as made applicable under Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994, pleased to answer the substantial questions of law raised in favour of the appellant and consequently set … to set aside the penalty, the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be applicable to the facts of thePage … Commissioner of Service Tax, claiming Rs.2,14,65,932.00 as service tax payable for the period from July 2004 to March 2008.4. In the First Appeal preferred by the Assessee/Appellant before theTribunal, the demand of service tax was confirmed; however,

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Burn Standard Co. Limited

Court : Chennai

Subject : Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal was correct in applying the Amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 vide Finance Act, 2010 which is applicable for the period from 10th September 2004 to 31st March 2008 whereas the period … which had to be filed within 6 months from the date of assent of the President, as per Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 2010, when factually the assessee had failed to comply with the condition requisite under

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Service Tax

filed by the Revenue.6. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the amended provision in Section 73 by the Finance Act, 2010, an assessee, who opts for payment in accordance with the amended provision in … Credit Rules, 2004 iii. When the amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by the Finance Act, 2010 is optional to the respondent and the respondent has to opt to avail the benefit provided in … law : "i. When the Notification No.10/2008 CE (NT) dated 1st March 2008 brought the amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

certain exemptions: Section 10 (20A) and Section 10 (23) ................................................... 20 G. Amendments to Section 2 (15) by Finance Act, 2008 (w.e.f. 01.04.2009) ................................................ 21 II. Submissions of parties ................................................................................................................................. 22 A. Arguments on behalf of the revenue.......................................................................................................... 22 … IT Act, were considered by this court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra). The decision discussed Sections 73, 74 & 75 of the GMB Act, which provide for management of all monies received by the GMB;

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner Service Tax

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

₹7,19,01,91 0 t - (three SCNs) which they have not paid during the period May, 2006 to March, 2008, should not be recovered under Section 75 of the Finance Act. 1994; (iii) Penalty should not be imposed … not be demanded and recovered under the proviso to the Section 73(1) read with Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and education cess under Section 95 of Finance Act