CESTAT Delhi held that change of name from “safranal” to K-100 does not amount to be an act of mis-declaration as there is no evidence of evasion of customs duty.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that sub-contractor is liable to pay the Service Tax even if the main contractor has discharged the liability. Accordingly, service tax payable on ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation not invocable as department was duly aware about what was being imported and the purpose thereof.
CESTAT Chennai held that confiscation of goods cannot be sustained as imported goods are provisionally released after complying with the necessary requirement of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
CESTAT Bangalore held that imposition of penalty unsustainable as service tax is demanded due to mis-interpretation of service being classified as joint venture agreement and not a franchisee service.
CESTAT Kolkata held that duty demand on supply of transmission line accessories and hardware fittings unsustainable as the same is only supply and not manufacture. Further, revenue couldn’t adduce any evidence of clandestine manufacture.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that know-how is not an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) within the meaning of service tax law and consequently its transfer is not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that the Ranger (non-electric) Vehicles deserve to be classified under CTH 8704 and Ranger (electric) and Brutus Vehicles deserve to be classified under CTH 8709.
CESTAT Delhi held that order passed by Commissioner (A) is without jurisdiction as the appeal is filed by the department before the Commissioner (A) against an order the correctness of which stood decided against the department by the Delhi High Court.
CESTAT Mumbai held that coaching in the field of sports has been specifically excluded from the applicability of service tax vide the definition of commercial training or coaching centre under section 65(27) of the Finance Act 1994
