Dive into the Commissioner of Customs vs. Kitex Garments case at CESTAT Bangalore, where a dispute over the classification of imported snap fasteners as buttons unfolds.
CESTAT Delhi held that any penalty or compensation received for any loss or damage caused by breach or non performance of the terms of the contract is not by way of consideration. Accordingly, service tax is not leviable on the same.
Commercial training or coach services that were provided by the Institute of Clinical Research (ICR) were liable to service tax as Commissioner had recorded a finding, after careful examination of the activities undertaken by the Indian Institute that it was providing training or coaching for a consideration. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner to decide whether out of the total demand that had been confirmed, Indian Institute would be entitled to the benefit of – Input credit of the expenses incurred as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; and the value of study material supplied; and cum-tax benefit under section 67 of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Allahabad held that in case of foreign export proceeds, the Indian Exporters are not the recipient of services from the Foreign Bank/ intermediary bank. Accordingly, demand of service tax as service recipient on bank charges thereon unjustified.
CESTAT Delhi held that area based exemption in terms of Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 available as manufacture of High Security Registration Plates is concluded in Himachal Pradesh only.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that mere suppression of facts is not enough for invoking extended period of limitation. There must be a deliberate and wilful attempt on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty.
Explore the CESTAT Kolkata order in Piyush Sharma vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX. Detailed analysis on service tax demand, valuation rules, and key takeaways.
CESTAT Delhi held that demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable as demand is based on the records of the assessee or other records which DGCEI could obtain through income tax department. Scrutiny of such records should have been done within time limit.
CESTAT Kolkata held that impugned gold cannot be seized u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it is a case of town seizure and revenue has failed to prove that gold in question is smuggled one. Accordingly, gold not liable for confiscation.
CESTAT Chennai held that show cause notice not specifying specific service rather demanding service tax on consolidated tax liability makes the show cause notice indefensible. Accordingly, the demand raised thereon is liable to be set aside.
