The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that invoices, on the basis of which Cenvat credit was availed was issued by manufacturer-supplier and the Appellant’s name is clearly appearing as consignee, therefore the invoices in question are squarely covered by clause (a) of sub rule 1 of Rule 9 of the Credit Rules.
The Hon’ble CESTAT Mumbai held that since the exempted goods were brought back into the factory after testing and subsequently, exported under Bond, therefore, by virtue of Rule 6(6)(v) of the Credit Rules, the provisions of sub-rule (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) of Rule 6 are inapplicable.
That at the time of import, the required Certificate was not produced is not a very strong ground for denying the benefit of Exemption Notification; There is a plethora of decisions in which various Courts and Tribunals have accepted the production of Certificate even after the importation for granting benefits;
Online service providers like ‘Flipkart’ facilitating sale and purchase of goods through online portals cannot be considered as dealer of goods – Not liable for VAT. Flipkart Internet (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [(2015) 62 taxmann.com 387 (Kerala)]
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that it is settled law that Sales tax can’t be attracted until effective control is transferred. Since CBUs did not get effective control over the brand name as such, it could not be considered as sale of intangible goods.
High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that if dealers engaged in the construction and sale of residential apartments, houses, buildings or commercial complexes, exercise an option, and comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 4(7)(d) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act and Rule made thereunder
Preservation of stem cells by cord blood banks is exempted only w.e.f. February 17, 2014/ Exemption Notification will have prospective effect when nothing specifically mentioned in the Notification as such. Life Cell International (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (MADRAS HIGH COURT)
Reliance Infratel Ltd. Vs. CCE (CESTAT Mumbai) Reliance Infratel Ltd. was engaged in the business of providing ‘passive wireless telecom infrastructure’. The Appellant and its associated enterprise entered into an MOU whereby the Appellant granted Associated enterprise an indefeasible right to use 80% of the total capacity of its optic fibre cable network for 10 years.
The Department has confirmed the demand against Expera India Pvt. Ltd. and others (the Appellants) and held that reimbursement of expenses are to be included in the gross value of the services in terms of the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules.
Department cannot file FIR under provisions of IPC for alleged non-payment of Service tax as the Finance Act being a special and complete Code prevails over general provisions of IPC- Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana [2015 (62) taxmann.com281 (Punjab & Haryana)]
