CESTAT Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Here, it was merely suppression of facts but intent to evade payment of service tax was absent.
CESTAT Chennai held that as the demand was raised on the basis of the books of accounts which was not hidden from the department, there was no wilful suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade tax and hence invocation of extended period not justified.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere use of the word “commission” in the clause dealing with terms of payment would not mean that “commission” was paid by the seller. The goods were sold on principal to principal basis and payment to buyer was expenses incurred by overseas buyer and not commission. Hence, service tax not payable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in Heena Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, activities like construction & fabrication as sub-contractor for bridges, railways, etc., not taxable under ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation’ service, based on bona fide belief and reasonable grounds.
CESTAT Mumbai held that appellant i.e. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Indian Railways are not separate entities and hence demand of service tax is unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the transaction value declared by the importer should form the basis of assessment unless the same is rejected, for reasons set out in Rules of Customs Valuation Rules.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services of Construction of residential complex to the Municipal Corporation of Surat under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission which is not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that services such as handling and transportation of mineral from pithead to specific locations would be a post-mining activity and would be taxable under cargo handling service or GTA service and not under mining services
CESTAT Kolkata held that rejection of refund claim of sugar cess on the ground of pendency of proceedings when no stay has been given by any higher court is unjustified.
CESTAT Chennai held that invocation of extended period of limitation justified as non-filing of ST-3 returns for such a long period i.e., from March 2006 to March 2010 will make the intent to evade tax obvious.
