CESTAT Mumbai held that legality or admissibility of credit can only be question to the Input Service Distributor, since at the receiver end no detail would be available regarding the nature of services.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services provided by an active party to the joint venture is not covered within Business Support Service. Work was assigned on the basis of co-developer and not an agent. Accordingly, service tax not payable.
CESTAT Delhi held that services by way of carrying out any process amounting to manufacture or production of goods, falls under the negative list and is exempted from the levy of service tax.
CESTAT Mumbai held that for the purpose of determination of limitation the relevant date in case of services availed will be challans showing the date of payment within one year.
CESTAT Mumbai held that provisions of rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable only when the manufacturer is engaged in both manufacture of dutiable and final product. It is not applicable in case of by-products.
CESTAT held that benefit of refund of SAD paid u/s. 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in terms of notification no. 102/2007-CUS as amended by notification no. 93/2008-CUS dated 01/08/2008 is available even if the same is paid through DEPB scrip.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the sale of ready-mix-concrete doesnt involve any service element and hence there is no service tax liability. Manufacturing activity of ready-mix-concrete cannot be covered under the definition of works contract.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as the appellants are not liable to pay service tax, provisions of section 70 of the Service Tax Act are not applicable. Hence, penalty for filing of service tax return belatedly is unsustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that freight charges are not includible in the transaction value when the sales take place at the factory gate. Here, appellants are mentioning the freight charges as separately in the invoices and there is nothing in the invoices or any other documents which shows that sales are on FOR destination basis
CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant being a subsequent purchaser of the goods from the M/s Philips India who had allegedly purchased the imported the goods hence confirmation of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act is unsustainable in law.
