New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 885 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (9) TMI 885 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Business Auxiliary service - services provided by the automobile dealers for facilitating the customers for taking banking loans from the Banks/Non-banking Financial Institution - Held that:- It is observed from CBEC Circular No. 87/05/2006-S.T., dated 06-11-2006 that the issue of livability of services provided by automobile dealers to the Banking/Non-banking Finance Institutions and quantum of consideration of the services provided was disputable and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

od limitations is required to be confirmed against the appellant along with interest. The benefit of cum-duty price is also required to be extended period to the appellant, in view of the order passed by this Bench in the case of M/s. Viraj Travel Agency Vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2013 (2) TMI 509 - CESTAT Ahmedabad]. For quantification of the demand, the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority after allowing the benefit of cum-duty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No : ST/182/2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Banks/Non-banking Financial Institution. 2. Shri M A Patel Consultant, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that charging of service tax on such services provided by authorised dealers to service tax and also as to what should be the amount of consideration on which such service tax should charged under Business Auxiliary Service was under dispute. He relied upon CBEC Circular No. 87/05/2006-S.T., dated 6-11-2006 to argue that there was a confusion in the leviability of service tax and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Allahabad 2010 (17) S.T.R. 47 (Tri. Del.) (iii) Brij Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur 2012 (25) S.T.R 489 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) South City Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi 2012 (25) S.T.R. 483 (Tri.-Del.) 3. Shri J. Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that majority of the demand is within the period of limitation, therefore, argued that the entire demand cannot be dropped as time bar. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version