Read the full text of the CESTAT Ahmedabad order in the case of Rajkot District Co Operative Bank Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. The issue revolved around the liability to pay service tax on the commission received by the appellant from the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited. The order analyzes the applicability of an exemption notification and concludes that the appellant is eligible for the exemption, therefore not liable to pay service tax on the commission received.
CESTAT Kolkata held that denial of credit of service tax stating that coal and iron ore mines situated away from the factory is unsustainable as no material has been placed on record by the revenue to substantiate that the mines were owned by separate entities.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund under section 11B duly available as there can be no levy of service tax on the activity of transportation of gas up to delivery point at customer’s premises as it pertains to self-service.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the discount/ commission/incentives given for sale of cars cannot be treated as compensation received by the appellant for any services provided to the car manufacturer.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that building constructed by the Appellant is not commercial and industrial construction, therefore does not fall under the category of taxable services, as the same is not used for commercial and industry but it is used for providing education.
CESTAT Kolkata held that receipt, utilization and duty paid nature of the input Sponge Iron was not in dispute. Hence, CENVAT credit duly available as input Sponge Iron is utilized in manufacturing of finished goods i.e. Pig Iron.
CESTAT Mumbai overturns service tax demand against Kellogg India, asserting that unpaid salary or notice pay recovery isn’t subject to service tax.
The CESTAT Kolkata has dismissed allegations of suppression and quashed a service tax demand in the Bimal Auto Agency Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX case, providing significant implications for the treatment of incentive-based transactions.
A thorough review of the CESTAT Ahmedabad case between Kandla Port Trust and C.C.E. & Kutch (Gandhidham) where the CESTAT quashed the order as the SCN was time-barred.
The issue at hand was the refund claim by Tata Motors, following a price increase and subsequent reversal due to non-acceptance by the buyer. The court had to decide whether the excise duty paid on the increased price could be refunded under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
