This half-yearly round-up analytically summarizes the key Indirect Tax-Customs, Excise and Service Tax rulings of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at Taxscan.in during the first half of 2024.
In a recent case, the Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held the assessee eligible for the refund of Service Tax which was rejected on the ground of limitation. The government extended the time limit to file refund claims of service tax on exported goods. It was viewed that the beneficial notification can be applied retrospectively to allow the refund applications filed within six months from the quarter ending.
A two-member bench of Shri Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) and Shri K Anpazhakan, Member ( Technical ) observed that the Government has realized the difficulty of the exporters and issued Notification No.32/2008-ST dated 18.11.2008 extending the period for filing the refund claim from â60 daysâ to âsix monthsâ. It was viewed that this beneficial notification can be applied retrospectively to allow the refund applications filed within six months from the quarter ending.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that nutrition/dietary supplements attract Integrated Goods and Service Tax ( IGST ) at rate of 18 %. The Tribunal viewed that the appellants have correctly declared their goods under Serial No. 453 and/or 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) which attracts 18% of IGST.
A two-member bench of Mr Ramesh Nair , Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju Member, (Technical) viewed that the appellants have correctly declared their goods under Serial No. 453 and/or 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) which attracts 18% of IGST. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. Shri Pramod Kedia, Chartered Accountant appeared for the Appellant and Shri Rajesh Nathan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) appeared for the Respondent.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the excise duty is not applicable on imported Zinc Oxide used in manufacturers of Pre-Calcined Ferrite Power ( Spray Dried ) ( PCFP ). The Tribunal viewed that the benefit of Notification No.25/1999-Cus dated 28.02.1999 as amended by Notification No.26/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 exempts Basic Customs Duty on imported Zinc Oxide which has been used in the manufacture of PCFP.
A two-member bench of Shri Ashok Jindal, Member( Judicial ) and Shri K Anpazhakan, Member( Technical ) held that the appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of Notification No.25/1999-Cus dated 28.02.1999 as amended by Notification No.26/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002, which exempts Basic Customs Duty on imported Zinc Oxide which has been used in the manufacture of PCFP.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Hyderabad Bench held that the Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction when no show cause notice ( SCN ) is issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
A Single Bench of Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member observed that âI further find that the impugned order is vitiated for lack of jurisdiction, which is a primary requirement and I hold that the Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to pass the order, as admittedly no SCN was served in accordance with section 124 of the Customs Act.â
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed service tax demand and held that the technical assistance for manufacture of aircraft and engines is not IPR- Services.
It is undisputed that the aforesaid activity of repairs and maintenance was carried out within the
jurisdiction of India and therefore was liable for tax under Section 65(105)(zzg) as âmanagement,
maintenance or repairâ service and was liable for payment of duty in terms of Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. The Commissioner vide the impugned order has categorically held that the provision of service having took place in India, there is a breach of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. To this extent, we are fairly in agreement with the findings of the Commissioner on the aspectâ the Tribunal noted.
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no service tax is leviable on online ticketing platform under support of Book My Show not receiving consideration from the card companies.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) and Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) observed that âAs per the agreement, card companies were required to reimburse the appellant all the amounts that were being offered by the card companies to their customers through the ticket booking platform. Appellant had entered into agreements with cinema houses for payment of tickets booked through their platform. For booking of tickets through their platform, appellant collected convenience fee and paid service tax on the same.â
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held domestic manufacturers cannot be expected to comply with conditions that are required to be imposed on importers and set aside the demand of duty alleging wrongful availment of exemption.
A division bench of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr C L Mahar, Member ( Technical ) held that the Appellant are eligible for exemption under Central Excise Notification under Notification No. 12/2012 âCE upon fulfilling all conditions stipulated therein, thus sufficiently establishing that the goods dealt with by the Appellants qualify for exemption.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that
the remunerations paid to directors are not âcommissionâ under the service tax category.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju Technical Member observed that âWe also consider the submissions made by the Learned Counsel with regards to clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Circular No. 115/09/2009 â ST dated 31.07.2009 that
states that the remunerations paid to such Directors would not be considered âcommissionâ as envisaged under Service tax category.â
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) observed that construction is not taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 for building not used for commerce or industry.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, President and CJ Mathew, Technical Member
observed that âIt is not possible to accept this finding recorded by the Commissioner as the words
âprimarily for commerce or industryâ obviously mean that the renovation or restoration has to be mainly for the purpose of commerce or industry. If the building is not used primarily for commerce or industry, the construction would not be taxable under section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act.â
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) remanded matter in the question regarding work of site formation and erection of windmills not âcommercial and industrial construction serviceâ.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed
that âIn the present case we are of the considered view that the main issue is with respect to
classification of the services provided by the Appellant under appropriate head. The Appellantâs claim is that they have carried out the work of site formation and erection of windmills and by that reason will not fall under the category of âcommercial and industrial construction serviceâ.â
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the benefit of cenvat credit cannot be availed for anyone outside India.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member and AK Jyotishi, Technical Member observed that âIt is not in dispute that the goods have been imported and therefore were manufactured outside India. The CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 are framed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. This Act applies to the whole of India but not beyond. When the Central Excise Act itself does not extend outside India, neither will the CENVAT Credit Rules. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone outside India to avail the benefit of CENVAT credit. Therefore, in respect of imports, it is impossible that the condition of CENVAT credit not being availed is not fulfilled.â
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that remelted zinc classifiable as zinc alloy and customs duty is leviable at 7.5%.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that âWe observe that there was no foul in the departmentâs reliance on the test reports in furtherance of ascertaining the classification of the goods in dispute. Therefore, the adjudicating authority was not wrong in re-classifying the disputed goods under CTH 7901 20 90. The classification of the goods by the Department is proper and needs no interference. The judgments cited by the Appellant in support of their claims are based on facts and circumstances entirely different from that in the present case therefore cannot be relied upon.â
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that confirmation of differential duty not proposed in show cause notice ( SCN ) cannot be sustained.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and Sulekha Beevi CS, Judicial Member observed that âMoreover in present case, the allegation raised in the Show Cause Notice is that the appellant has wrongly availed benefit of Notification 21/2002 Cus at serial no. 357B (ii) in regard to BCD. There is no mention of wrong availment of CVD under Notification No.6/2006. However, the impugned order has denied the exemption of CVD available @ serial no. 59 (i) of Central Excise Notification No. 6/2006. The argument of the Counsel that the impugned order has travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice is not without substance. The confirmation of the differential duty which has not been proposed in the Show Cause Notice cannot be sustained. For this reason also the demand of differential duty cannot sustain.
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed excise duty demand as the burden of differential duty not passed on to customer.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, President and PV Subba Rao, Technical Member observed that âAfter the differential duty was paid and after the customer declined to pay the differential duty, the appellant had written it off in its books of accounts as certified by the Chartered accountant. Thus, we have no manner of doubt and that the appellant had borne the burden of the differential duty and had not passed it on to its customer or to anyone. Thus, the appellantâs case falls squarely under Clause (e) of the third proviso to section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, i.e., the duty of excise and interest paid on such duty were borne by the appellant manufacturer and it had not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest to any other person.â
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that cenvat credit can be availed when input and input services received up to place of removal of manufactured goods.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member
observed that âIt can be seen from the above definition of the place of removal that if the goods are actually sold to an independent buyer from depot of the consignment agent, the place of removal of the excisable goods will be such premises of the consignment agent or depot of the manufacturer. We are of the view that since all the cost incurred up to the place of removal will be integral part of the price and therefore, all the input and input services which are received up to the place of removal of the manufactured goods, the assessee becomes entitled for credit of the same as per the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules.â
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that no confiscation can be made on taking prior permission from the customs department for storage of non- bonded goods in bonded warehouse.
A Two-Member Bench comprising SK Mohanty, Judicial Member and MM Parthiban, Technical Member observed that âIn view of the statutory provisions regarding the warehoused goods and the instructions issued by the CBEC, it is amply clear that movement of goods within the bonded warehouse is permissible, subject to the condition that such activities should be within the knowledge of the department and necessary approval for such activities should be obtained by the warehouse licensee. In the present case, as discussed herein above, it is amply clear that the appellants have complied with such statutory provisions in carrying out the activities within the warehousing station(s). Therefore, it cannot be said that the goods dealt with by the appellants are liable for confiscation and accordingly, the appellants cannot be exposed to penal consequences provided under the statute.â
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) dismissed an appeal regarding the conversion of shipping bills from the Drawback Scheme to the Advance License Scheme after availing Drawback benefits. The decision highlights the intricacies of export promotion schemes and the importance of adherence to prescribed procedures.
In result, the single bench of Mr. Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal affirming the principle that once benefits under a particular export scheme have been availed, conversion to another scheme cannot be permitted, in line with Circular No. 36/2010-Cus and relevant legal precedents.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has overturned a penalty imposed under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, on an exporter for allegedly attempting to export semi- finished leather disguised as finished leather.
In result, the two-member bench comprising Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) ruled in favour of the appellant, setting aside the penalty of Rs.
70,000/- imposed under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with consequential reliefs, if any. However, the bench upheld the redemption fine of Rs. 70,000/-. The ruling highlights the importance of intention and cooperation in cases involving alleged customs violations, emphasising that penalties should be commensurate with the offence committed and the intent behind it.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that services provided to recipients outside India, with payment received in foreign exchange, qualify as exports and are exempt from service tax. The decision marks a significant victory for businesses engaged in providing services to overseas clients.
The two-member bench comprising Mr. Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Mr. Raju (Technical
Member) referred to its previous ruling in the appellantâs case, where it had held that services provided to recipients outside India and payment received in foreign exchange qualified as exports under Rule 3(1) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, and were exempt from service tax.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has overturned a demand for Service Tax levied solely based on disparities between ST-3 Returns and Trial Balance figures. The judgment highlighted the fundamental principle that the burden of proving tax evasion rests squarely on the revenue authorities.
In result, the single bench of Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Limited.
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the refund of service tax on cancelled bookings of flats.
A Single Bench of PK Choudhary, Judicial Member observed that âI find that the credit/refund of the excess service tax paid by the Appellant was a right that had accrued in favour of the Appellant and therefore, as per Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, such right of the Appellant ought to be upheld and protected. Further, Section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 contemplates the very situation as in the present appeals and accordingly, provides for refund of taxes paid under the erstwhile Laws.
The Chennai bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that re- determination of valuation of Imported car from United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) based on Australian prices is invalid without contemporary imports of comparable goods.
The two-member bench of the tribunal, composed of Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) and Sulekha Beevi C.S (Judicial Member), concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals)âs decision to grant exemption benefits and revoke the goods confiscation order was both legally sound and appropriate. They deemed the enhancement of value as unjustified. Consequently, the tribunal found no grounds for overturning the contested decision. Therefore, the Departmentâs appeal was dismissed.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a Subcontractor is liable to pay service tax on âCommercial or Industrial Construction Serviceâ. The tribunal found that the services have been held to classified under the category of âCommercial and Industrial Construction Servicesâ the benefit of composition scheme has been denied to assessee.
In light of the case of Melange Developers P. Ltd. two member bench of Mr P K Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) held that the appellant being a subcontractor is liable to pay service tax on of âCommercial or Industrial Construction Serviceâ. Further held that extended period cannot be invoked to demand service tax from the appellant and in the present case the entire demand is barred by limitation as the demand pertains to the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 whereas show cause notice was issued on 28.03.2009 which is completely time barred.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that claim for valuation as per Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Values) Rules, 2006 or as per Composition Scheme under Work Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 can be allowed only if the services provided by them are classifiable under work contract.
A two-member bench of Mr P K Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) held that the demand for the normal period of limitation will have to be upheld, by classifying the services provided by the appellant under the category of âWork Contract Servicesâ, and by extending the benefit of 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Values) Rules, 2006 or as per Composition Scheme under Work Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the demand of service tax as Overseas Logistics Service Providers ( OLSPs ) are not providing service as an agent of assessee. The Tribunal observed that the services provided by the OLSPs will be taxable under clause (vi) of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act only if the services are provided on behalf of the Appellant to the customers of the Appellant.
A two-member bench of Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Shri K Anpazhakan, Member (Technical) held that the services rendered by the OLSPs cannot be categorized under the category of âBusiness Auxiliary Servicesâ. The CESTAT held that the demand of service tax confirmed along with
interest and penalty confirmed in the impugned order under the category of âBusiness Auxiliary Serviceâ
is not sustainable and set aside the same.
In a recent case, the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Excise registration can be allowed if either party is a manufacturer and undertakes Excise duty liability. The Tribunal observed that if either party was to apply for registration as a manufacturer the department would have accepted the application. Excise registration is only to the effect that one of the parties undertakes to discharge the excise duty liability on the goods manufactured. This cannot be interpreted to mean that the activity done by the other party is not a manufacturing activity.
A two-member Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar, Member (Technical) observed that if either party was to apply for registration as a manufacturer the department would have accepted the application. Excise registration is only to the effect that one of the parties undertakes to discharge the excise duty liability on the goods manufactured. This cannot be interpreted to mean that the activity done by the other party is not a manufacturing activity.
In a recent case, the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the demand of Rs. 4.82 crores excise duty against Divisional Forest Officers ( DFO ). It was observed that once the taxability of Resin produced by the appellant and sold by it has been settled, the demand for excise duty has to be confirmed.
The two-member bench of Mr Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Mr P V Subba Rao, Member ( Technical ) viewed that when it has been settled that central excise duty would be leviable as Resin is produced, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner. The CESTAT dismissed the four appeals.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) calls for re-determination as the assessment of micro-cellular goods falters, questioning the reliance on an unofficial test report.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial member ) and C.J Mathew (Technical member) concluded that the impugned order was set aside and notice restored to the original authority for fresh decision on claim of appellant-assessee after test, CESTAT, are inclined to remand the matter insofar as appellant-assessee was concerned, the appropriate disposal of this appeal of revenue too was re-determination of the dispute by the original authority. Accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals by way of remand.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that a manufactured product contained in syringes without needles cannot be categorized as parts and accessories of goods falling under heading 9018.
The bench found that only question whether the product âAll Starâ Reusable Insulin Delivery Device cleared by the appellant as âSyringes without needlesâ were exempted from excise duty under serial No. 309 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 or it is liable to pay concessional rate of duty at the rate of 6% under serial No. 310 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and whether the demand of Cenvat credit availed on input and input services can be sustained on the ground that finished goods are eligible for complete exemption and appellants have wrongly paid Central Excise duty at the rate of 6% on their final product.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has directed the Commissioner to return the seized gold, ruling that it was not smuggled under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising P.K.Choudhary ( Judicial member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical member) does not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, the same is sustained. The appeals filed by the Department are thus dismissed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has set aside the service tax demand, along with interest and penalties, stating that residential units are not liable to service tax.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial member) and C.L Mahar (Technical member) concluded that the service tax demand confirmed with interest and penalties is not sustainable in this case. The demand of Service Tax upheld by O-I-A with interest and penalties deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that issuing a second Show Cause Notice (SCN ) for excise demand without adjudicating the first was deemed jurisdictionally void.
The two-member tribunal, consisting of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial member) and Anil G. Shkkarwar (Technical member), concluded that the appeal was granted. They deemed the order issued by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune, under Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-013 to 14/2020-21 dated 29.07.2020, based on a subsequent show-cause notice following the dismissal of the first notice by CESTAT, to be lacking jurisdiction. Consequently, they set aside the order, granting consequential relief.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has remanded the case for reconsideration, stating that no Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) credit was taken on inputs, capital goods, or input services used in rendering the service goods.
The two member bench of the tribunal comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial member) and Raju Technical member) concluded that adjudicating authority can reconsider the issue afresh based out of the factual matrix of the present case taking into account the submissions made by the Appellant as regards the effect of availment of Cenvat credit and abatement where credit was not availed at all. Therefore, CESTAT found that the issue needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.
The Delhi bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the absence of a consignment note invalidates the service tax claim for the Goods Transport Agency (GTA).
A single member bench of the tribunal comprising Binu Tamta ( Judicial member) found that it was an undisputed position that the appellant had not issued any consignment notes by whatever name and hence in view of the law laid down by the series of decisions, no service tax liability can be imposed. Therefore, it was held that the demand proposed in the show cause notice for recovery of service tax of Rs. 1,69,003/- along with interest and penalty was dropped and the impugned order was set aside. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Service tax was not leviable on service received in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under Section 26 of Customs Act.
The single member bench of the tribunal comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial member) concluded that the Section 26 of SEZ Act provides that no tax/ duties are leviable on the input or input service received and used in the SEZ. As per this statutory provision which overrides any other Act, the service tax is not leviable on the service received in SEZ. Accordingly, the tax paid on the service needs to be refunded. Therefore, in my considered view the appellant is legally entitled for the refund.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that freight and /or insurance charges shown separately in the invoice is not includable in assessable value of the excisable goods.
After analyzing the arguments and submission of both parties, the two member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) observed that freight and /or insurance charges shown separately in the invoice s not includable in assessable value of the excisable goods.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT ) has held that service tax demand under work contract service is not valid as the assessee was not registered. It was found that the party was registered with the department only for providing âCommercial and Industrial Constructionâ services till 05.122010 and was availing the benefit of notification 1/2006 dated 05. 10.2010.
A two-member bench of Mr P K Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) held that the services provided by the respondent were correctly classifiable under the category of âWork Contract Servicesâ the entire argument advanced by the revenue to the effect that the activities undertaken by the respondent in respect of Lucknow Development Authority would not survive.
In a significant case, the Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT ) has held that the agreement for supply of water not a right to use natural resources and quashed the service tax demand.
The two member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the agreement was for the supply of water by the government to the appellant and is not for the assignment of any right to the appellant to use the natural resources of the government.
While allowing the appeal, it was held that the agreement is for the supply of water and not mere access to a water source. The CESTAT held that no service was provided by the government to the appellant.
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has ruled that service tax is not payable by the National Co-Operative Consumersâ Federation of India,(NCCF) since they are adding 5% margin money, collecting the sale price from the consumers, and paying the sales tax on the entire amount received from the end consumers.
The CESTAT observed that, as per the coal policy, the appellant is selling coal at a price whereby he is getting a profit margin of 5% on the base price. The resale price has been fixed by an agreement between the parties. The two member bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) held that the transaction is one of sale or purchase on a principal-to-principal basis, and the coal companies as well as the appellant are discharging the liability of sales tax or VAT. There is no element of service involved, and the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability of service tax.
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that expenses related to advertising and marketing are expenses are not includable in value of imported goods since the activities were carried out in India for the sale of the goods in India which amounts to post-import.
The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the reasoning of the Principal Commissioner in the order that since the appellant was required and obliged to undertake marketing and advertising in terms of the agreements with the foreign suppliers, the price of the imported goods cannot be said to be the sole consideration within the meaning of Section 14 of the Customs Act.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
