CESTAT Chennai found that the Department’s case was based on an allegation that manpower services were used exclusively for insurance and mutual fund activities. The Tribunal held that the services were actually used across multiple business verticals, making the denial of CENVAT credit unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to meet export obligations under the EPCG Scheme does not automatically justify confiscation where there is no diversion or misuse of capital goods.
The Tribunal held that a customs refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the Chartered Accountant certificate was not in the suggested format. It ruled that procedural format deficiencies alone do not justify denial of refund.
CESTAT held that rent paid for walls used to display advertisements forms an intrinsic component of advertising services and must be included in the taxable value. The Tribunal rejected the claim that the advertiser acted as a pure agent. However, the value of printed flexes sold separately was excluded from service tax valuation.
CESTAT held that for quarterly Rule 5 refund claims, the one-year limitation period must be calculated from the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. The Tribunal ruled that export of services is completed only upon receipt of foreign exchange.
CESTAT held that once service tax and interest were paid before issuance of the SCN and the payment was intimated to the department, penalty proceedings could not be sustained. The Section 78 penalty was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that housekeeping services used for maintaining telecom equipment and business premises qualify as input services. Credit was allowed as the services were directly connected with the provision of telecommunication output services.
CESTAT Delhi held that contracts involving execution of work along with use of materials were correctly classifiable as works contract services and upheld the reduced service tax demand.
Tribunal held that third-party exports relied upon by EPCG licence holders for discharge of export obligation were valid under the FTP framework prevailing during the relevant period and that Customs authorities could not disregard subsisting EODCs restored by DGFT in the absence of independently established fraud.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Service Tax could not be recovered again from the recipient under RCM when the transporter had already collected and deposited the tax. The demand, interest, and penalties were set aside.
