M\/s. Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1666 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 23-8-2018
Appeal No. ST\/391\/2010 – Final Order No. 42290\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe facts of the case are that the appellants inter alia, were engaged in cargo handling service. Pursuant to audit, it appeared to the department that appellants (i) were required to pay service tax on reimbursable expenses incurred during the period 19.4.2006 to 31.7.2<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n earing, ld. counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that both the issues in dispute are no longer res integra and have been settled by number of decisions. In respect of demand pertaining to reimbursable expenses, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. – 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC). In respect of the demand with regard to alleged wrong availment of CENVAT credit of services used for non-taxable output service, he relies on the following case laws:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ChennaiService Tax2018 (9) TMI 1666 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 23-8-2018Appeal No. ST\/391\/2010 – Final Order No. 42290\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate for the Appellant Shri … Continue reading “M\/s. Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14126","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\na. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC)
\nb. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narayan Polyplast – 2005 (179<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n