Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2007 (6) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te, for the Appellant. Shri B.L. Meena, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the lower authority has demanded Service tax of over Rs. 12 lakhs (along with interest) from the appellants and imposed on them equal amount of penalty on the ground that they did not pay Service Tax on "Cargo Handling S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Semac Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2006 (4) S.T.R. 475 (Tri.-Bang.)]. (ii) BBR (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2006 (4) S.T.R. 269 (Tri.-Bang.)]. (iii) OIKOS v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III [2007 (5) S.T.R. 229 (Tri.-Bang.)]. Learned SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner and opposes the present application. 2.&ems....