CESTAT Chennai held that agreement entered that the appellant is providing uplinking service for ‘SS Music channel’ and ‘Sur Sangeeth Channel’ is only a sham document. Appellant has disguised the rendering of Broadcasting Service under cover of uplinking service. Hence, service tax demand invoking extended period of limitation sustained.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that benefit of segregation can be allowed only if the imported scrap contained impurities like iron, rubber, plastic, steel etc.
Analysis of Jagjeet Singh Parwana vs Commissioner of Central Excise case. Non-specific show-cause notice’s impact on Service Tax demand set aside by CESTAT Chandigarh.
Analysis of the CESTAT Kolkata case involving excise duty demand based on differences between balance sheet and ER-1 returns, highlighting the need for substantial evidence.
Analysis of C.C. Ahmedabad vs Smaltochimia India Pvt Ltd case involving customs duty classification dispute for ‘Twin Vision Scanner’ and related equipment.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that CENVAT credit of excise duty is allowable even when 5% of the value of exempted goods is reversed, complying with Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules.
CESTAT Bangalore ruled that a refund cannot be rejected when taxpayer provides adequate documents to prove service tax payment and non-availment of CENVAT credit.
CESTAT Kolkata grants relief to Tata Motors, quashing denial of CENVAT credit on excise duty due to genuine disclosure of transporters’ copy of invoice.
Analysis of Surin Automotive vs CESTAT Chennai case. CESTAT’s decision that bill discounting facility is taxable not only by banks but also by a body corporate.
Analysis of Hero Motocorp Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise case. CESTAT Chandigarh allows CENVAT credit on helmet locks supplied with motorcycles as accessories.
