The Tribunal held that although inclusion of freight and insurance was legally justified, the department failed to establish suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the extended limitation period was held inapplicable and the demand was quashed.
CESTAT held that secondment of employees is taxable as manpower supply service. However, it set aside extended period demands due to absence of suppression.
The Tribunal held that margins earned from buying and selling cargo space are trading profits, not consideration for services. Such transactions on a principal-to-principal basis are not liable to service tax.
The Tribunal held that exemption benefits cannot be claimed under a notification issued after the filing of Bills of Entry. It ruled that the relevant date for duty determination is the date of filing, not clearance.
The case examined whether goods were actually supplied against invoices. The Tribunal ruled that lack of infrastructure and transport evidence indicated non-genuine transactions, justifying penalty.
The Tribunal held that shared advertising expenses do not constitute sponsorship service. It ruled that absence of a service provider–recipient relationship negates tax liability.
The Tribunal held that demand based on disclosed records cannot invoke extended limitation. It ruled that absence of fraud or suppression renders such demand time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the certificate issued by an authorized institution was valid. It ruled that absence of contrary evidence makes penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that expansion of an existing manufacturing unit cannot be treated as setting up a new factory. Credit was allowed as the services were directly linked to manufacturing and not covered under exclusion clauses.
Agarwal Jagdish Construction Co. Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner(Appeals) and ADG (CESTAT Delhi) In Agarwal Jagdish Construction Co. Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner (Appeals) and ADG, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi examined the rejection of a service tax refund claim of ₹70,46,602 filed by the appellant for the period June 2015 to […]
