Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.64 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs Central Excise ... on 1 November, 2016

Delta Electronics India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Cgst-Dehradun on 30 June, 2023

"10. The Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 9,82,03,090/- is in respect of the service received from the dealers who had provided repair and maintenance service during warranty period on behalf of the appellant to the customers. The sale price of the air conditioners sold by the appellant to their consumers during the period of dispute included the warranty charges. There is no dispute that Central Excise duty had been paid on the value which included the warranty charges. During the warranty period, the appellant were under obligation to provide free repair and maintenance services to the consumers, who had purchased the air conditioners from them. However, instead of providing the free repair and maintenance service directly in discharge of their obligation the 14 Excise Appeal No. 50801 of 2020 [DB] appellant roped in the dealers who provided free repair and maintenance to the consumers on their behalf and the dealers for providing this service on behalf of the appellant, received the payment from the appellant and on that amount, they paid the service tax. The point of dispute is as to whether the service provided by the dealers to the appellant is an input service and whether the appellant would be eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of the same. The service received by the appellants from their dealers is Business Auxiliary Service which has to be treated as an input service for the appellant used in or in relation to manufacture of their final products, as free warranty repair and maintenance during warranty period, has enriched the value of the goods. This issue stands decided in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Danke Products (supra) and Gujarat Forgings (supra) and also in the case of Zinser Textile Systems Pvt. Ltd (supra), in view of this, this Cervat credit demand is also not sustainable and has to be set aside."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aerens Goldsouk Projects (Hissar) P Ltd vs Delhi Iii on 11 December, 2024

Service Tax Appeal No. 51435 Of 2018  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida14  M/s Mega Trends Advertising Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow15  Central India Engineering Co. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur16  Khandwala Securities Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service tax, Mumbai17  Valencia Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Nagpur reported in 18 Moreover, Ld. CA submitted that Ld. Adjudicating Authority has wrongly held that intent to evade payment of tax is not required for invoking extended period of limitation. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Daman vs Unique Pharmaceutical Laboratories on 20 November, 2024

 M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida 2024 (1) TMI 333 ALLAHABAD CESTAT  State Street Syntel Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & Service Tax, Navi Mumbai-2023 (12) TMI 569 CESTAT MUMBAI  Microsoft Global Services Center (India) Private Limited and Microsoft India (R & D) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Hyderabad-IV-2020 (10) TMI 57 HYDERABAD CESTAT  Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax vs. FTD India Pvt Ltd 2017 (10) TMI 22 CESTAT HYDERABAD  EXL Service.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1