The Department is not allowed to raise new grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, which were not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals)-CC (Sea-Imp.), Chennai Vs. Kwang Sung Brake India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 585 – CESTAT Chennai]
Where assessee was engaged in development and sale of software etc., activities of Business Consultancy services and Software Implementation services, which have been subject to Service tax, cannot be considered as ‘sale
Transaction would be Inter-state sales where movement of goods is from one State to another in terms of purchase order, even if goods are supplied to common godown of buyer and seller- State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Annamalaiar Mills Ltd. [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 234 (Madras)]
Where assessee was allowed partial exemption from CST in terms of Exemption Notification, reopening of assessments on plea that full CST was collected from customers is not justified- J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 233 (Rajasthan)]
It came to the notice of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC or the Board) that certain field formations are taking a view that Service tax is payable on services received by the apparel exporters from third party undertaking job work on the premise that the services received by apparel exporters is of manpower supply service, which neither falls under the Negative list nor is specifically exempt. However, trade is of the view that the such services are of job work involving a process amounting to manufacture or production of goods, and thus would fall under the Negative list of services given under Section 66D(f) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act) and hence would not attract Service tax.
The Committee headed by the Chief Economic Adviser Dr. Arvind Subramanian , had given its recommendations to the Finance Minister last week, recommending a four-tier rate structure wherein some essential items will be taxed at 12%, gold and precious metals at 2-6%, some so-called sin or demerit goods like luxury cars and tobacco products at 40% and most goods and all services at 17-18%.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai, relying upon the decision in the case of Ketan Motors Ltd. Vs. CC, CE & ST [Final Order No. A/321/2013-WZB/C-1 (CSTB), dated 18-2-2013], held that Section 67 of the Finance Act mandate levy of Service tax on a value or consideration received for rendering the services.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that a service recipient can only see the Cenvatable document under which Service tax paid/ payable has been indicated. However, it is not the case of the revenue that the service provider does not exist.
CCE Vs. Shrushthi Plastics (P) Ltd. – CESTAT, Chennai, applied the ratio of the Apex court decision in case of Nebulae Health Care Ltd. Vs. CC Chennai [2006-TIOL-1380-CESTAT-MAD], which squarely applies to the instant case
CCE Vs. Control & Switchgears Contactors Ltd. – Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that while the Respondent had declared that goods were not meant for retail sale, revenue could not produce any evidence to contrary and hence, duty was rightly paid as per Section 4 of the Excise Act.
