The tribunal ruled that confiscation and penalties were not justified because the Chartered Engineer’s certificate confirmed that the imported goods matched the importer’s declaration.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that expenses incurred for travel and stay of foreign specialists cannot be included in the taxable value since they were not charged by the service provider as consideration.
The Tribunal held that renting a building for operating a hotel falls within the statutory exclusion under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the service tax demand on the leased hotel property was set aside.
The Tribunal held that once the Order-in-Original is set aside, the penalty imposed under that order cannot survive independently and must depend on the outcome of fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that installation and HVAC works involved supply of materials such as piping and wiring on which VAT was paid. Therefore, the contracts qualified as works contract service and not pure service.
The Tribunal held that service tax liability cannot be determined merely from Form 26AS entries without examining the nature of services. It set aside a ₹47.96 lakh demand after finding that the services were exempt road and canal construction works.
The Tribunal ruled that statutory presumption of passing on duty must be rebutted with proper evidence. The refund claim must be reconsidered with supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that authorities had not determined the minimum percentage of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium required for classification as fertiliser. It set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh examination.
The Tribunal remanded the refund case after finding that the taxpayer should be given an opportunity to produce documents proving that the tax burden was not passed on. The adjudicating authority must reconsider the claim after examining the evidence.
CESTAT Hyderabad set aside a service tax demand on rent-a-cab services provided to an SEZ unit after holding that the SEZ Act has overriding effect over the Finance Act notification. The Tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be denied based on the notification’s condition when Section 26 of the SEZ Act provides the benefit.
