CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as DRI just prior to investigations by DGCEI took away all records pertaining to the import of scrap, the manufacturer cannot be expected to produce documents showing transport and receipt of the goods in the factory. Accordingly, demand of Cenvat alleging non-receipt of inputs set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that amount received for land reclamation and soil stabilization in the nature of site formation service provided in the course of construction of port is exempt from service tax vide notification 17/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that deduction given in sales invoice being discount, even though under nomenclature of commission, cannot be treated as commission for the purpose of levy of Service Tax under ‘business Auxiliary Service’.
CESTAT Kolkata held that works contract service including sub-contracts related to Railway is exempted from service tax vide notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20th June 2012.
CESTAT Allahabad dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as repeated adjournments were asked for in mechanical and routine manner.
CESTAT Kolkata held that payment of interest doesn’t arise in the case of revenue neutral situation and hence no interest is payable by the appellant.
CESTAT Bangalore held that benefit of exemption notification no. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and 12/2012-CE available to the motor vehicle manufactured as ownership of chassis was transferred after the sale of the same by VIPL to Appellant.
CESTAT Chennai held that the demand for paying an amount of 5% /10% /6% on the value of exempted clearances unwarranted when the appellant has reversed the proportionate credit of inputs used in manufacture of exempted products.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty imposed under Sub-Regulation 8 of Regulation 12 cannot be inclined for lack of due diligence on the part of the employee of CFS especially when the department did not find anything wrong when compared to employees of other CFS.
CESTAT Mumbai held the penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 imposable as appellant being custodian of Container Freight Station not only failed to fulfil the conditions and to abide by the responsibilities reposed on them as Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) by assisting in illegal removal of seized red sanders.
