In absence of proof of availment of Cenvat Credit while rejecting a service tax refund claim, CESTAT Bangalore has directed re-adjudication of case of Fairy Food Products Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that Chartered Accountant certificate was provided for quantification of tax, however, the said certificate was not discussed. It is settled law that certificates given by Experts in the respective fields cannot be ignored without cogent reasons.
CESTAT Kolkata held that providing operational or administrative assistance in any manner or providing infrastructural support service or managing distribution and logistics service, fall within the ambit of ‘Business Support Service’.
Versatile Wires Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX – CESTAT Kolkata, ruled out penalty u/s 11AC due to lack of evidence of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules
CESTAT Chennai held that concession fee paid by KPPL to the Puducherry Port is payment for the right to develop/ operate/ maintain the port including project facility. Accordingly, classifying the activity of Build Operate Transfer contract u/s 65(105)(zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 Support Services of Business or Commerce is unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules services rendered and consumed outside India are beyond taxable territory under the Finance Act, 1994, exempting Aegis Ltd. from service tax on consulting engineering services to a US client.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that when EOU procures inputs by availing benefit of notification no. 52/2003-CUS, while clearing such inputs to DTA, EOU is required to pay duty only by way of cash.
CESTAT Bangalore held that order of the lower authorities directing absolute confiscation and allowing redemption solely to re-export on payment of redemption fine and penalty is without any merit.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that excess tax paid is adjustable in terms of rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 against tax liability arising in subsequent months.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that certificate issued by qualified professionals like Cost Accountants cannot be brushed aside merely with the statement that corroborative evidence was not produced. Such certificates are needed to be accepted by the department unless investigation is undertaken in doubtful cases.
