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.
CESTAT Chandigarh quashes allegations of clandestine removal of chemicals without excise duty payment, emphasizing the importance of expert evidence.
CESTAT Kolkata rules that objections on the eligibility of credit cannot be raised when filing refund claims, providing relief to Infosys Technologies Ltd.
CESTAT Mumbai remands the matter in the Sunder’s International vs. Commissioner of Customs case, questioning piecemeal adjudication and MRP determination.
CESTAT Chandigarh rules on service tax demands based on ST-3 Returns and balance sheets in the case of Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association vs. Commissioner of Central Excise.
The ruling emphasized that limitation should not apply in such cases and that the mere filing of an appeal by the department does not withhold the refund.
Explore CESTAT Chandigarh order on Hero Motocorp Ltd vs. CCE & ST Gurugram, where entire demand is deemed unlawful. Detailed analysis and conclusion provided.
In the case of The Advertising Corporation of India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, CESTAT Kolkata rules on service tax liability and exemptions. Learn the detailed analysis and outcome.
