CESTAT Bangalore reduces redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5% for imported used multifunction machines in absence of market value. Detailed analysis of case.
CESTAT Chennai’s ruling on Ford India Pvt Ltd: No Service Tax on composite contracts for vehicle repair involving goods & services before 01.07.2012.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Parts of Drier/ parboiling parts namely Heat Exchanges, Drier Fan and Aluminium Fin Tubes are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8437 and attracted NIL rate till Circular No. 924/14/2010-CX dated 19.05.2010 got rescinded.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that goods imported are classifiable under tariff heading 27101290 which are allowed to be imported only through State Trading Enterprises (STE), as per the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) condition 5 of chapter 27. Redemption fine and penalty justified as condition of the policy for importing goods not satisfied.
CESTAT Chennai held that a building or its part put up on land and which is used for car parking will get the benefit of the exclusion from levy of Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, refund claim allowed.
Vedanta Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Kolkata) The Appellants have exported Iron Ore Fines declaring the Fe content therein to be less than 64%. Under seven Shipping Bills exports were completed for different overseas importers during the period 2010-2011. Before the shipment, samples were drawn by Customs officials in the presence of the […]
CESTAT Allahabad held that in terms of rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in case appellant doesn’t appeal when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, dismiss the appeal for default.
CESTAT Chennai held that site formation activity done after obtaining General Power of Attorney (GPA) but before selling the land is leviable to service tax under the category of ‘Site formation and clearance service’.
CESTAT Delhi held that service tax is not chargeable on the services provided in respect of tour undertaken for carrying out Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia by Indian pilgrims considering these as export of service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that single invisible contract involving supply of raw material and construction activity is classified under works contract hence taxable only from 01.06.2007. However, in case of divisible works contract clearly defining value of service portion and raw material is classifiable under ‘Commercial and Industrial Construction’ prior to 01.06.2007.
