Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (5) TMI 1181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ide Miscellaneous Order No. M/30067-30068/2019 [ 2019 (5) TMI 1097 - CESTAT HYDERABAD ] , the Tribunal had allowed the plea of the appellant that since M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited has paid up the service tax demand under GTA services, the same may be treated as compliance of mandatory pre-deposit on their part. The appellant has complied with the mandatory requirement of pre deposit, taking .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the Ld. Counsel Ms. Nivedita Mehta submitted that the issue in the appeal is with regard to the classification of services. The Department urges that the services rendered by the appellant fall under the category of Clearing Forwarding Services , whereas the appellant contends that they have rendered G .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ited supra), the Tribunal had followed the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and allowed the plea of the appellant that since M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited has paid up the service tax demand under GTA services, the same may be treated as compliance of mandatory pre-deposit on their part. The relevant portion of the decision of Hon ble High Court of Andh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o.3 on the above mentioned aspects for as per its plea HUL Limited has already discharged its liability towards GTA services, which allegedly cover even the service tax demanded from the petitioner, and the same has not been given credit to by respondent No. 1, the petitioner may not be liable to pay further amount towards predeposit. 3. In the above view of the matter, respondent No. 3 is directe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates