Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)
Sony Pictures Networks India P Ltd vs Commr Service Tax- Vi Mumbai on 18 December, 2019 cites

M/S Maruti Suzuki Ltd vs Commr.Of Central Excise-Iii,Delhi on 17 August, 2009

24. The catena of decisions, pertaining as they do to the nexus between the 'output service' and 'input services', cited by Learned Authorised Representative traverse to the stage after determination of eligible manufacturer or provider of service. The case of Revenue being the denial of such status to the appellant-assessee is not furthered by the principles laid down in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Manikgarh Cement [2010 (20) STR 456 (Bom)], Maruti Suzuki Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC)], SBI Capital Markets Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU Mumbai [2012-TIOL-1161- CESTAT-MUM] and Telco Construction Equipment Company Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Custom, Belgaum [2013-TIOL- 1942-CESTAT-BANG].
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 105 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Calcutta on 31 March, 1998

25. Again, in our view, the reliance placed by Learned Authorised Representative on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Chromotype Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [1998 (99) ELT 202 (SC)] is misplaced as the issue therein pertained to the assessable value of goods alleged to have been cleared through related person and, thereby, enunciating the scope for 'lifting of the corporate veil' but we take note of the observation that '... The Court said that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices, however, cannot part of tax planning. Dubious methods resorting to artifice or subterfuge to avoid payment of taxes on what really is income can no longer be applauded and legitimised as splendid work by a wise man but has to be condemned punished with severest of penalties. If we examined the thrust of all the decisions, there is no part on the authorities to lift the veil of company, whether a manufacturer or a buyer, to see it was not wearing the mask of not being treated as a related person when, in fact, both, the manufacturer and the buyer, are in fact the same persons....... It is, however, difficult to lay down any broad principle as to when corporate veil should be lifted or if on doing that, could it be said that the assessee and the buyer are related persons. That will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and it will have to be seen who's calling the shots in the assessee and the buyer.' which suggests that this access is not to be applied across the board. In the present circumstance, the existence of a surrogate of the broadcaster is mandated by law and not just for the purposes of taxation. There can be no subterfuge or artifice when the State so legislates. The relationship between the overseas entity and the appellant-assessee is open and declared and the tax law sought to be invoked against the latter is not premised on the existence of a relationship between the two. The laudable morality that guided the ST/87215, 87222 & 87223/2016 20 widening of investigative jurisdiction cannot be read out of context to impute an allegation that is not acknowledged in the law pertaining to levy of service tax.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 80 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd on 22 April, 2016

12. On the three services that were held to be ineligible for availment, it is the submission of Learned Counsel that ₹ 11,56,322 pertains to corporate membership fee paid for various associations which are not personal in nature. It is also submitted that the availment of credit of ₹ 4,00,072 as recipient of 'outdoor catering ST/87215, 87222 & 87223/2016 10 service' cannot be denied in view of the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom)].
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Commnr. Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs Manikgarh Cement Ltd on 23 August, 2005

24. The catena of decisions, pertaining as they do to the nexus between the 'output service' and 'input services', cited by Learned Authorised Representative traverse to the stage after determination of eligible manufacturer or provider of service. The case of Revenue being the denial of such status to the appellant-assessee is not furthered by the principles laid down in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Manikgarh Cement [2010 (20) STR 456 (Bom)], Maruti Suzuki Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC)], SBI Capital Markets Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU Mumbai [2012-TIOL-1161- CESTAT-MUM] and Telco Construction Equipment Company Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Custom, Belgaum [2013-TIOL- 1942-CESTAT-BANG].
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 71 - Full Document
1   2 Next