Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Sanjeev Chaudhari Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh

2016 (2) TMI 688 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Valuation - Business auxiliary service (BAS) - inclusion of reimbursement of expenses - activity of providing personnel for operating and security and other support services, besides undertaking housekeeping, deposit of sale proceeds in bank, assistance in customer service and maintenance of records - period from July 2003 to March 2005 - Held that:- Undoubtedly the cost of such activities would form part and parcel of the charge levied by the appellant from M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. It wo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

51/2015 - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - MR. JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND MR. C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Kumar Akarshan, Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. Suchitra Sharma, Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER: C J MATHEW: M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., owner of Company Owned Company Operated outlets, engaged Sanjeev Chaudhari to manage the Gumjal outlet. In that capacity he has entered into a contract with M/s IOC Ltd. for the sale of petroleum products from that installation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to March 2005 as provider of business auxiliary service . In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has concurred with the impugned order and hence this further appeal before us. 2. The short point to be determined is whether the appellant is a provider of business auxiliary service or not. We find that the premises are owned and the installations erected by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. We also note that M/s India Oil Corporation Ltd. has entered into a formal contract with the appellant requiri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vidual, he does not fall within the definition of commercial concern which according to the appellant was exempted vide notification no. 18/2003-ST dated 21st August, 2003 and later by notification no. 18/2005-ST dated 8th June, 2005. It is also contended that what is effectively been taxed is the commission received by the appellant for sale of products of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and that, being a commission agent, he was eligible for exemption for the period from 1st July, 2003 to 9th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted here that the amount which is claimed to be not includible were, in fact, the amount that was yet to be received from M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. It is also claimed that an amount of ₹ 3,46,845/- is towards reimbursement of expenses towards salary, electricity charges, generator, etc. 3. Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the appellate authority. 4. It is seen from the agreement that the appellant performs a number of services, as listed therein, all of wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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