Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Messrs Nova Petrochemicals Limited vs Service Tax - Ahmedabad on 31 July, 2019 cites

Sify Technologies Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Ltu on 12 September, 2017

3. He further submits that the proceeding had originated from an erroneous interpretation of the said notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20th June 2003 which had been clarified subsequently by decisions of the Tribunal in Brindco Sales Ltd v. Commissionerof Service Tax, Delhi [2015 (40) STR 986 (Tri- Del)]that was followed in Sify Technologies Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2018-TIOL-659-CESTAT-Mad]and in Chabaria Marketing Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai[2016 (43) STR 193 (Tri- Mumbai)]. That of the Tribunal in Commissionerof Central Excise, Allahabad v.Chandan Chemicals [2007 (7) STR 578 (Del)]was also cited.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chahabria Marketing Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax on 6 January, 2016

3. He further submits that the proceeding had originated from an erroneous interpretation of the said notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20th June 2003 which had been clarified subsequently by decisions of the Tribunal in Brindco Sales Ltd v. Commissionerof Service Tax, Delhi [2015 (40) STR 986 (Tri- Del)]that was followed in Sify Technologies Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2018-TIOL-659-CESTAT-Mad]and in Chabaria Marketing Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai[2016 (43) STR 193 (Tri- Mumbai)]. That of the Tribunal in Commissionerof Central Excise, Allahabad v.Chandan Chemicals [2007 (7) STR 578 (Del)]was also cited.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S. Bhilosa Text N Twist Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 1 June, 2016

2. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, the demand pertains to the finding of taxability consequent upon modification of 2 ST/239/2010-SM exemption in notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20th June, 2003 which had initially excluded the consideration received as 'commission agent' from the ambit of tax upto 7th July, 2004. Learned Counsel also contends that the show cause notice dated 6th April, 2009 does not contain any justification for invoking the extended period of limitation in the face of a catena of decisions of the Tribunal which held that, where an assessee could reasonably be inferred to entertain the belief that activities was not taxable, the ingredients for such invoking could not be said to exist. Reliance was place on Bhilosa Industries Pvt Ltd v. Commissionerof Central Excise, Vapi [2015 (317) ELT 283 (Tri-Ahd)]andHoogly Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of CentralExcise, Kolkata-III [2015 (329) ELT 142 (Tri- Kolkata)].
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Capital Vehicle Sales Ltd, Gurgaon vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Delhi on 11 August, 2017

3. He further submits that the proceeding had originated from an erroneous interpretation of the said notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20th June 2003 which had been clarified subsequently by decisions of the Tribunal in Brindco Sales Ltd v. Commissionerof Service Tax, Delhi [2015 (40) STR 986 (Tri- Del)]that was followed in Sify Technologies Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2018-TIOL-659-CESTAT-Mad]and in Chabaria Marketing Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai[2016 (43) STR 193 (Tri- Mumbai)]. That of the Tribunal in Commissionerof Central Excise, Allahabad v.Chandan Chemicals [2007 (7) STR 578 (Del)]was also cited.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1