The issue involved taxing services allegedly received from a foreign branch office. The Tribunal held that an entity cannot provide services to itself, making the demand unsustainable.
The dispute concerned agreements with buyers and instalment payments during construction. The Tribunal ruled that such transactions were self-service and not taxable before the 2010 amendment.
CESTAT Chennai held that tyres, tubes and flaps secured by plastic carry straps are not placed in a package within the meaning of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Hence, provisions of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inapplicable.
The issue concerned denial of CENVAT credit on services used across multiple units under centralized registration. The Tribunal held that Rule 7 permits distribution of credit subject only to limited conditions and does not restrict usage across units.
The issue was whether statutory auction fees are taxable as service consideration. The Tribunal held that such fees are compulsory levies under law and not taxable. It clarified that statutory functions performed by public authorities do not attract service tax.
The issue was whether the service provider was liable to pay service tax on manpower services. The Tribunal held that liability rests with the recipient under reverse charge, making the demand unsustainable.
The issue was whether services related to road construction for government bodies are taxable. The Tribunal held that such services are exempt, making the demand unsustainable.
The issue was whether software purchased under high sea sales attracts service tax. The Tribunal held that such transactions qualify as import of service and are taxable.
Tribunal examined whether assembly of RLMS units under a turnkey contract constituted manufacture. It held that on-site assembly and integration of components did not result in excisable goods. The ruling clarifies that such project-based activities are not liable to excise duty.
The Tribunal examined whether fund transfers to overseas branches constituted taxable services. It found no evidence of any service being rendered or received in India. The ruling held that mere transfer of funds for operational expenses does not attract service tax.
