CESTAT Delhi held that unless there is an undertaking by the principal manufacturer that they would discharge the duty liability (notification no. 83/94-CE), the job worker is liable to discharge duty on the clearances from the premises of job worker.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that before 01.04.2011 it was not open to the appellants to avail CENVAT credit paid on input services and utilized for provision of exempted services or trading goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) is not liable to pay service tax on their statutory activities performed in terms of ‘The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952’ (EPM & MP Act, 1952).
CESTAT Kolkata held that denial of CENVAT Credit to service receiver alleging that invoice is issued by service provider beyond prescribed period is unjustified as obligation of timely issuance of invoice is cast on the service provider and not service receiver.
CESTAT Kolkata held that it was not correct to disallow credit on the strength of invoices issued by unregistered dealer (intermediate supplier), when actual receipt of goods was not disputed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that gold bars/ pieces cannot be proved to be smuggled merely relying on the retracted statements without any other corroborative evidence. Accordingly, confiscation unjustified.
Delve into the CESTAT Delhi ruling in Shri Satyender Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs case, analyzing penalties imposed without evidence of mens rea for mis-declaration in consignments.
CESTAT Delhi held that the hostel service and education services are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business and it is the education service that gives the essential character to such bundle. Accordingly, hostel service is not subjected to levy of service tax.
CESTAT Kolkata held that demanding duty on the short payment, ignoring the excess payment is bad in law. Accordingly, demand of differential duty unsustainable as the entire exercise is revenue neutral.
CESTAT Kolkata held that in absence of service receiver and service provider relationship, there is no service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) for payment of service tax, vide notification 30/2012 ST (Sr. No. 9 of the table) dated 20.06. 2012 as amended.
