Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Canbank Financial Services Ltd vs The Custodian & Others on 3 September, 2004
He has
also distinguished the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of
Canbank Financial Services Ltd Vs Custodian & Ors (supra) stating that in
that case, the Canbank Mutual Fund has only created ownership in the
shares, which was vested in respondents 2. To that extent, there was no
transfer of ownership at the stage of allotment. However, once the
ownership is vested in the allottee, any further transaction therein has to be
considered as transaction involving transfer of ownership. He observed that
in the instant case, ownership created by allotment had been taken
possession of by the assessee as evidenced by the payments made to the
person who created such ownership and thereafter, redeemed such
ownership and the rights associated with the units on receipt of
consideration. Thus, the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court would not
apply. He ultimately held that the intention of Rule 6(1) of CCR is to ensure
that credit of service tax paid on input services should not be allowed to a
provider of output services who utilized such services either exclusively or
commonly for providing taxable services and non-taxable service activity.
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 78 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce Pune I on 31 January, 2020
15. Essentially, he felt that even when the output activity is not covered
by the definition of service, payment of amount calculated in the provided
manner or reversal of credit relatable to such activity is required to be
made, since such activity is deemed to be an exempted service. Further, the
(7)
ST/30176/2019, ST/30344/2020 & ST/30046/2021
Adjudicating Authority has also taken into consideration that assuming that
the noticee, per se, was not engaged in trading, the fact remains that they
were transacting in securities and on such activity, no service tax was being
discharged by them. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Tribunal in
the case of Orion Appliances Ltd Vs CST, Ahmedabad [2010 (19) STR 205
(Tri-Ahmd)], as also in the case of Mercedes Benz Pvt Ltd Vs GCE, Pune-I
[2014 (36) STR 704 (Tri-Mumbai)], where it was found that trading was not
a service, still it was held that the portion of tax paid on input services which
was not attributable to output service could not be availed as credit.
Section 78 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
M/S Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr on 14 November, 2008
In
Khoday Distilleries Ltd Vs CIT [2008 (307) ITR 312 (SC)], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, inter alia, explained the term 'allotment of share' and held
that there is difference between issue of share to a subscriber and a
purchase of share from an existing shareholder. The first case is that of
(9)
ST/30176/2019, ST/30344/2020 & ST/30046/2021
creation, whereas, second case is that of transfer. Thus, allotment of share
was held as not involving transfer. In this case, though a right is created for
units, the units are not being transferred to the appellant.