Pr. Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai South Versus Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (1) TMI 533 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 26-12-2017
ST\/S\/92940, 92981, 92983, 92985, 92987\/17 & ST\/87467, 87556, 87557, 87558, 87559\/17 – M\/90944-90948\/2017
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)
\nShri M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (AR), for appellant
\nShri S.B. Ghabawalla, C.A. for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: M.V. Ravindran
\nAll these five applications are filed by the Revenue for staying the operation of the impugned order-in-appeal No.SK\/07-11\/LTU MUM\/2017-18 dated 8.5.2017.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3. On perusal of the records, it tran<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore – 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kan). He would submit that a similar issue came up before Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Sutham Nylocots – 2014 (306) ELT 255 (Mad.). He would submit that the said decision of the Hon'ble Madras Court specifically discusses the issue of eligibility to avail cenvat credit before the unit is being registered. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Pr. Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai South Versus Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.Service Tax2018 (1) TMI 533 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 26-12-2017ST\/S\/92940, 92981, 92983, 92985, 92987\/17 & ST\/87467, 87556, 87557, 87558, 87559\/17 – M\/90944-90948\/2017Service TaxMr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (AR), for appellant Shri … Continue reading “Pr. Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai South Versus Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.”<\/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-9809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9809","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=9809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Learned Chartered Accountant submits that subsequent to the decision of mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CST, Bangalore Vs. Kyocera Wireless (India) Pvt. Ltd. – 2016 (43) STR 542 (Kar.) have reiterated their findings in the judgment of mPortal India Wire<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n