Consult Us For Construction
Service Tax Blog
1. Honourable CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH in the case of Umasons Auto Compo (P.) Ltd V. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad provided that if service is covered under reverse charge but payment has been done by service provider than no second time service tax can be demanded from service receiver.  42 taxmann.com 347 (Mumbai - CESTAT)
This judgement although belongs to the Pre-Negative List regime, has a critical impact even on the post-negative regime and shall come to the rescue of several innocent service receivers, not aware of the finer nuances of the service tax provisions.
2. Honourable CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH in the case of GMMCO Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur provided that where hirer (Service Receiver ) of goods is responsible for misuse/ abuse, safe custody, liability to settle disputes with third parties and compensation for damages, than its amounts to transfer of right to use and deemed sale and not liable to service tax under supply of tangible goods for use services.  42 taxmann.com 370 (Mumbai - CESTAT)
3. Honourable CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH in the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad provided that while calculating aggregate value for small service provider portion of abated value shall not to be included, as abatement is a part of exemption only.
 42 taxmann.com 88 (New Delhi - CESTAT)