CESTAT Chandigarh held that the manufacturer and marketing company could not be treated as related persons under the Central Excise Act. As a result, the valuation-based excise demands and penalties were set aside.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the manufacturer and marketing company could not be treated as related persons under the Central Excise Act. As a result, the excise duty demand based on related-party valuation was set aside.
CESTAT Bangalore held that excavation, extraction, grading, and sorting of iron ore are mining-related activities taxable only under Mining Services from 01.06.2007. The Tribunal ruled that such activities could not be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service for the earlier period.
CESTAT Delhi held that proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to inputs and input services used for generating exempted electricity is sufficient compliance with Rule 6(3)(i). The Tribunal therefore set aside the demand and penalty.
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT credit on items such as MS Angles, Beams, Channels, and Plates is admissible where they are essential for manufacturing final products. The denial order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that service tax cannot be demanded again when the service provider has already collected and deposited the tax. The balance sponsorship service tax demand was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that modular kitchen baskets, racks, and similar products retain their identity as household articles and cannot be classified as parts of furniture merely because they are fixed in cabinets or drawers. The customs demand based on classification under Chapter 94 was set aside.
CESTAT Bangalore held that screening and grading of iron ore are mining-related activities covered under the taxable category of Mining Services. The Tribunal ruled that such activities could not be classified as Business Auxiliary Service.
The dispute concerned denial of 67% abatement on construction and works contract services involving supply of materials. CESTAT held that substantive tax benefits cannot be refused solely due to failure to claim them in ST-3 returns. The Service Tax demand and related penalty were consequently set aside.
The dispute concerned whether importers lose their right to contest enhanced valuation after submitting consent letters during customs clearance. CESTAT held that written acceptance does not extinguish the statutory right to challenge reassessment.
