P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Jaquar & Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Service Tax - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (30 Oct 2014)

Commissioner, Service Tax cannot delve into correctness of Cenvat

MANU/CE/0798/2014

Excise

On a perusal of sample debit notes, the nature of the service clarified by the Service Tax registration number, the Tribunal found in favour of the Appellant that service was a Business Auxiliary Service. It added, that once Service Tax paid by the service provider was accepted by the Central Excise authorities, as Service Tax on "Business Auxiliary" service, the Central Excise authority could not seek review of that assessment of the service at the time of considering its Cenvat credit.

Relevant : Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of C. Ex. MANU/CS/0183/2009 Commissioner of C. Ex., Indore vs. Gwalior Chemicals Industries Ltd. MANU/CE/0329/2011 Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. MANU/CE/0406/2011

Tags : BUSINESS AUXILIARY SERVICE   CENVAT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved