M\/s Syx Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 163 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 17-8-2018
ST\/86672 & 86680\/2018 – A\/87200-87201\/2018
Service Tax
DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nShri P.K. Shetty, Advocate for Appellant
\nShri O.M. Shivdikar, AC (AR) for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Dr. D.M. Misra
\nThese two appeals are filed against respective Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Principal Additional Director General, DGPM, WRU, Mumbai. Since common issue is involved, I have taken up both the appeals together for disposal.
\n2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing export of Information Technology Soft<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ld to be inadmissible as credit. Consequently, the refund was also held to be inadmissible. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Syx Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai EastService Tax2018 (10) TMI 163 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 17-8-2018ST\/86672 & 86680\/2018 – A\/87200-87201\/2018Service TaxDR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri P.K. Shetty, Advocate for Appellant Shri O.M. Shivdikar, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These … Continue reading “M\/s Syx Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East”<\/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-14239","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14239","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=14239"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14239\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14239"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14239"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14239"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Learned Advocate Shri P.K. Shetty for the appellants submits that the rent was paid by the appellant to the co-owners against the agreement dated 10.10.2012 and the amount to be paid to each of the co-owner has been spelt out in para 28 of the Registered Leave and License agreement. In support, that the rent was paid to each of the co-owners and TDS was deducted, in this regard, relevant TDS certificates have been produced by the appellant. It is his contention that separate invoices are raised by each of the co-owner to the extent of their holding cannot be considered as two invoices raised for the same property in one month.
\n4. Learned AR for <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n