CESTAT Delhi held that receipt of service doesn’t qualify as Manpower Supply Service and hence demand of service tax from service receipt under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) applicable to Manpower Supply Service unsustainable in law and hence liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the issue involved is of pure interpretation of legal provisions and classification of services therefore, in absence of any no mala fide intentions and suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of service tax, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the works contract service of construction of residential complex for JawaharLal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JnRUM) is not liable to service tax
In a case between Emtee Poly Yarn Pvt. Ltd. and C.C.E. & S.T. VAPI, CESTAT Ahmedabad sets aside demand for Excise Duty, citing a nil rate on the day of clearance.
CESTAT Kolkata held that confirmation of demand of duty unjustified if in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no actual loss has been caused to the revenue. Thus, duty demand set aside in absence of any loss of revenue.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that enhancement of value unsustainable as approximately same price for various other consignments imported at same time and have same quantity were accepted by the department.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the place of provision of the service of transportation of goods by air/sea from a place in India to a place outside India, will be a place outside the taxable territory. Thus, such service being within the purview of Export of Service Rules will be outside the service tax net.
CESTAT Kolkata held that composite contract involving transportation of goods and loading/unloading, packing/unpacking, etc. will be treated as a contract for transportation only as the other services are naturally bundled together with the principal service of transportation. Accordingly, service tax leviable under GTA service and not under cargo handling service.
CESTAT Allahabad held that charge of clandestine removal cannot be imputed in absence of any evidence or in absence of an independent investigation. Accordingly, demand unjustified.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per rule 4(b)(iii) of the point of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, in case payment is received before change in effective rate of tax and invoice is issued after change in effective rate of tax, then, point of taxation will be date of payment. Hence, demand set aside on advance receipt.
