Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

CESTAT- Mumbai

Section 9, GST Caselaws, Sec. 66A

CESTAT-Mumbai : Where section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 is sought to be invoked, classification of service must necessarily be dealt with in concatenation with identification of recipient

Avijit Das / August 21, 2017

CESTAT, Mumbai Bench Korean Air vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Section 9, 66A M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member And C.J. Mathew, […]

CESTAT-Mumbai : ‘Thermal Printer’ imported by assessee classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No. 8443 32 90 and not under Heading No. 8443 19 90

Avijit Das / August 7, 2017

CESTAT, Mumbai Bench Honeywell Automation India Ltd.Vs. Commissioner of Customs N. Panda, Judicial Member And C.J. Mathew, Technical Member Order

CESTAT-Mumbai : When revenue intends to change classification, reason thereof should be brought on record and informed to assessee to defend its case and it has also to discharge its burden of proof

Avijit Das / August 3, 2017

CESTAT, Mumbai Bench J Sons Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) N. Panda, Judicial Memberand C.J. Mathew, Technical

GST Caselaws, Sec. 65(25B)

CESTAT-Mumbai : Where assessee carried out construction of property of a Government organisation ‘APMC’ and ‘APMC’ collected from member farmers only maintenance charges and said property was not registered out or sold to anybody, services provided by assessee would not fall under category of ‘commercial or industrial construction service’

Avijit Das / July 31, 2017

CESTAT, Mumbai Bench Sanjeev K. Gaddamwar vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Section 65(25b) Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member And Raju,

GST Caselaws, Sec. 65(25B)

CESTAT-Mumbai : Where assessee obtained contracts from ‘AMPC’, a charitable ‘organization, for construction activity and also obtained contracts from ‘CWC for construction of warehouses in railway land, services provided by assessee would not fall under category of ‘commercial or industrial construction service

Avijit Das / July 31, 2017

CESTAT, Mumbai Bench A.B. Projects (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Section 65(25B) Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member And

GST Caselaws, Sec. 65(68)

CESTAT- Mumbai : Where assessee as per agreement with one ‘K’ provided service in respect of producing or processing goods in premises of ‘K’ and rate was on per piece of goods produced, said service would not fall under category of ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency service’

Avijit Das / July 10, 2017

CESTAT, Mumbai Bench Dhanashree Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Section : 65(68) Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member And Raju,

GST Caselaws, Section 54

CESTAT-Mumbai : Where assessee provided investment advisory services to customer located outside India and claimed for refund of input service tax lying unutilized, since assessee had filed sufficient documents in support of its claim of refund, it was entitled to refund

Avijit Das / July 7, 2017

CESTAT, Mumbai Bench BCP Advisors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I Section 54 Period : July, 2007 to

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top