CESTAT Delhi held that works contract services used for repair and maintenance of existing plant and machinery qualify as input services. The Tribunal ruled that the exclusion under Rule 2(l) applies only to construction-related activities involving buildings or civil structures.
CESTAT Chennai held that unsigned invoices, unauthenticated e-mails, and uncorroborated statements were insufficient to reject transaction value. The Tribunal quashed the demand, confiscation, and penalties after finding no proof of additional consideration.
The Tribunal held that a medicine containing Ergotamine was merely a preparation and not “Ergotamine and its salts” under Schedule-B of the NDPS Order. As no NOC was required, the penalty imposed on the Customs Broker was quashed.
CESTAT examined whether Bluetooth headsets should be treated as communication devices or ordinary headphones. It held that devices capable of transmitting and receiving voice and data in wireless networks fall under CTI 85176290.
The Tribunal examined a service tax demand raised on the basis of DGARM data and financial statements. It held that reliance solely on such material could not sustain the extended limitation period, resulting in the demand and penalties being set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that food testing kits were wrongly described as being for “diagnostic use only” to claim a customs exemption. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, extended limitation period, and penalties.
CESTAT Chennai held that villas constructed on separate plots under individual agreements and approvals do not constitute a residential complex. Common amenities and gated community features alone were held insufficient to attract service tax.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act is mandatory when service tax is paid after the due date. Administrative or procedural delays cannot override the statutory liability to pay interest.
The Tribunal held that ledger entries and computer records recovered from a third party were insufficient to establish liability under Section 112(b). Independent corroborative evidence was necessary to sustain the penalty.
CESTAT Chennai held that exports made under Notification No. 30/2004-CE and the DEPB scheme cannot be included in exempted turnover for Rule 6(3A) credit reversal. The Tribunal consequently set aside the demand for alleged short reversal of CENVAT credit.
