CESTAT Chennai held that service tax credit on business support and management consultancy services cannot be denied as such services fall within “activities relating to business,” making them eligible input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules.
CESTAT Chennai ruled that contracts for executing specific jobs on piece-rate or output basis do not qualify as manpower supply services, making the service tax demand under reverse charge unsustainable.
The tribunal held that amounts recovered from employees as notice pay for leaving employment early do not constitute a taxable service. It ruled that such payments are compensation for contract breach and not consideration for a declared service.
Tribunal held that airline promotional packages including airfare, accommodation, and transfers do not qualify as tour operator service because airline did not plan or organize tours. Service Tax demand raised under this category was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that exemption notifications for Education Cess and SHEC apply only to Clean Energy Cess and not to CVD on imported coal. The case was remanded only to verify whether any cess was wrongly levied on CEC.
The tribunal held that TDS paid by the service recipient over and above the contract value cannot be included in the taxable value for service tax. Only the amount charged in the invoice forms the basis for service tax liability.
The Tribunal declined to treat the retail outlet price as the assessable value under valuation rules, noting that the Department’s case relied on grounds not properly established in the notice.
The Tribunal remanded disputes over denied CENVAT credit and export of services after noting that documentary verification and disclosure of the departmental report were necessary.
CESTAT Mumbai held that re-determination of assessable value of imported power bank without adequate evidence of undervaluation is not justifiable. Accordingly, order is set aside to that extent it had confirmed the adjudged demands on the basis of revised/enhanced valuation of goods.
A show cause notice was issued proposing reclassification, recovery of differential duty under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, and imposition of penalties. Additional Director General confirmed the demand, ordered recovery of duty with interest, and imposed penalties including a penalty on Manager of the appellant company. Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeals.
