Tribunal ruled that payments made for transfer of technology, technical documents, and manufacturing assistance under an inter-governmental agreement did not amount to Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service. It held that the arrangement related to technology transfer for aircraft production and not taxable consultancy.
CESTAT Chennai held that mere trading in air tickets did not amount to taxable “Tour Operator” service. The Tribunal ruled that retaining discounts on ticket sales was outside the scope of service tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that earlier GST cancellation history became irrelevant once the exporter possessed valid GST registration on the transaction date. The Tribunal set aside revocation of the Customs Broker License.
CESTAT Chennai held that imported cold heading quality alloy steel products were classifiable as wire under CTH 7229 after undergoing cold drawing processes. The Tribunal ruled that denial of exemption and differential duty demand could not survive once the classification was found correct.
CESTAT Chennai held that services provided to SEZ units for authorised operations remain exempt from service tax even if part of the services are rendered outside SEZ premises. The Tribunal relied on Sections 26 and 51 of the SEZ Act to allow the appeal.
The Bangalore CESTAT held that a refund claim cannot reopen a finalized customs assessment where the importer failed to challenge the self-assessed Bill of Entry within the statutory appeal period.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere misclassification of imported goods does not attract confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. Since the goods were not liable for confiscation, penalty on the Customs House Agent under Section 112(a)(ii) was set aside.
CESTAT Bangalore held that services rendered by a sub-contractor for authorized operations within an SEZ are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 4/2004-ST. The Tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be denied merely because services were provided through main contractors.
CESTAT Chennai held that service tax cannot be levied twice on the same commercial coaching and training services by taxing both the principal entity and its business partner. The Tribunal found that service tax had already been discharged by the principal service provider.
The CESTAT Chennai held that reassessment of a Bill of Entry can be permitted under Section 149 where excess CVD was paid due to failure to claim an exemption notification. The Tribunal directed customs authorities to reconsider the refund claim after reassessment instead of rejecting it on procedural grounds.
