CESTAT Delhi held that services such as handling and transportation of mineral from pithead to specific locations would be a post-mining activity and would be taxable under cargo handling service or GTA service and not under mining services
CESTAT Kolkata held that rejection of refund claim of sugar cess on the ground of pendency of proceedings when no stay has been given by any higher court is unjustified.
CESTAT Chennai held that invocation of extended period of limitation justified as non-filing of ST-3 returns for such a long period i.e., from March 2006 to March 2010 will make the intent to evade tax obvious.
CESTAT Chennai held that any refund claim is not maintainable in absence of any challenge to the assessment order as the refund authority cannot assume the role of an adjudicating / assessing authority.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services availed in respect of effluent treatment plant for treatment of industrial waste is in relation to the overall manufacturing activity and hence CENVAT Credit is duly admissible.
CESTAT Delhi held that the transaction of purchase and sale of liquor by the Corporation will not fall within the ambit of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ and would, therefore, not be taxable.
CESTAT Delhi held that maintenance charges towards the maintenance of documents and towards the security of documents by keeping the same at the premises of the appellants is rendering of service of ‘Maintenance, Management or Repair Service’ and hence demand confirmed.
Whether it be registration or centralized registration, when there was no mandatory provision in the Rules regarding registration, the Cenvat Credit could not be denied, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which was not existence in law.
Read the case of State Bank of India vs Commissioner of Service Tax and importance of discretion in handling funds under PPF accounts. Learn how CESTAT Mumbai decision impacts classification of services and taxability.
Read the full text of the CESTAT Chennai order in the case of VLCC Health Care Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The issue revolved around whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax at the revised rate of 12.24% for the period prior to 18.04.2006. The order provides an analysis of relevant provisions and concludes that the demand cannot sustain, setting it aside.
