CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-S.T. as the taxable value of services remained below Rs.10 lakh. The Tribunal ruled that no service tax liability arose in such circumstances.
The assessee claimed that amounts deposited in bank accounts were retailer collections remitted to the telecom company and not commission income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct proper verification.
The Hyderabad CESTAT held that amounts recovered from vendors for delayed performance of contracts cannot be treated as consideration for tolerating an act under Section 66E(e). The service tax demand on liquidated damages was set aside.
The Madras High Court held that prosecution under Section 276CC was invalid because the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction over the assessee’s case. In absence of a transfer order under Section 127, the complaint was held unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi condoned a 333-day delay in filing appeal after finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be bona fide. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
CESTAT Mumbai held that optional “type test charges” collected separately from customers cannot be included in the assessable value of transformers. The Tribunal ruled that post-manufacturing testing conducted at the buyer’s request does not attract Central Excise duty.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that waste mud generated during bleaching of crude palm oil cannot be treated as an excisable manufactured product. The Tribunal ruled that involuntary waste arising during refining does not attract Central Excise duty.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the imported aerosol generator formed part of a system used for physical and chemical analysis and was correctly classifiable under CTH 9027. The Tribunal ruled that the product did not independently control or regulate parameters required for classification under CTH 9032.
Tribunal held that capital goods do not lose eligibility for Cenvat credit after becoming part of an immovable plant fixed to earth. It ruled that admissibility depends on compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, not on immovability of final structure.
The Tamil Nadu AAAR held that supply of food to corporate clients under contractual arrangements amounted to contract food service taxable at 18% GST. The authority ruled that menu planning, quality checks, delivery, and service obligations went beyond mere sale of food.
