Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Hari Om Telecom Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chandigarh

2016 (1) TMI 597 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of service tax on Business Auxiliary services - small scale benefit under Notification No. 6/2005-ST - use of brand name of others i.e Tata Teleservices - Held that:- service has been provided by the appellant to Tata Teleservices and therefore it cannot be said that it provided service to Tata Teleservices in the latter's brand name. Thus the denial of small scale exemption benefit to the appellant is unsustainable.

As regards the incentive received for achieving the targets, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al No. 974 of 2011 - Dated:- 6-11-2015 - G RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND R K SINGH, MEMBER (T) For the Petitioner : Shri Jatinder Mohan, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri K Poddar, DR ORDER Per: R K Singh: Appeal No. ST/974/2011 has been filed against order in appeal dated 22.03.2011 which upheld the order-in-original dated 31.03.2008 in terms of which service tax demand of ₹ 58105/- was confirmed alongwith interest, and penalty of ₹ 1000/- under Section 77 and ₹ 1,00,000/- under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was provided in the brand name of Tata Teleservices and therefore, small scale benefit under Notification No. 6/2005-ST was not available to the appellant. 4. We have considered the contention of both sides. We find that the demand has been confirmed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and not under Section 73A of the Act (which contains the provision for recovery of service tax collected and not paid). The appellant entered into an agreement with Tata Teleservices and it is clear from the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the view that the appellant provided BAS taxable service to Tata Teleservices. However, as regards, the contention of Revenue that the service provided was not eligible for small scale exemption as the service was provided in the brand name of Tata Teleservices it is pertinent to note that service has been provided by the appellant to Tata Teleservices and therefore it cannot be said that it provided service to Tata Teleservices in the latter's brand name. Thus the denial of small scale ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Recapitulation:

Recent / Latest:
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version