New Delhi – CESTAT

Sec. 2(119), GST Caselaws

CESTAT- New Delhi : Where assessee falling under category of ‘Works Contract Service’ claimed benefit of ‘Works Contract Composition Scheme’, denial of such benefit for sole reason that assessee had failed to file intimation to department prior to payment of service tax under composition scheme not justified

/

CESTAT, New Delhi Bench Vaishno Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur Section 2(119) S.K. Mohanty, Judicial

GST Caselaws, Sec. 2(72), Section 2

CESTAT-New Delhi : Where assessee procured various electrical items and accessories from market and sold them to clients in various combinations [BPL Kit] and it had mounted two or more items like DP switch and kit-kat fuse or MCB on wooden or plastic board, process of mounting would not amount to manufacture

/

CESTAT – New Delhi Bench TGL Enterprises (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Section 2(72) Period 1-9-2009

GST Caselaws, Sec. 2(72)

CESTAT New Delhi : Where assessee procured various electrical items and accessories from market and sold them to clients in various combinations [BPL Kit] and it had mounted two or more items like DP switch and kit-kat fuse or MCB on wooden or plastic board, process of mounting would not amount to manufacture

/

CESTAT New Delhi Bench TGL Enterprises (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi Section 2(72), 2(f) Period 1-9-2009

GST Caselaws, Sec. 65(23)

CESTAT-New Delhi : Where assessee had entered into agreement with a customer for providing services of loading limestone gitties into trucks, transportation, unloading, stacking and then loading these gitties into railway wagons, said services would not fall under category of ‘cargo handling services’

/

CESTAT, New Delhi Bench ACE Construction Mines & Mineral Co-op.Society Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II Section : 65(23) S.K.Mohanty,

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security