CESTAT Ahmedabad held that excess tax paid is adjustable in terms of rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 against tax liability arising in subsequent months.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that certificate issued by qualified professionals like Cost Accountants cannot be brushed aside merely with the statement that corroborative evidence was not produced. Such certificates are needed to be accepted by the department unless investigation is undertaken in doubtful cases.
CESTAT Chennai held that license fee are accruing to appellants is based on the turnover and profits of the hotel business. Accordingly, such transaction cannot be one of ‘renting of immovable property’ as the consideration is not like a regular rent but is dependent on the annual performance and profits of the hotel.
CESTAT Chennai held that black tea classifiable as agricultural product within the definition or meaning under notification no. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20.06.2003 as amended vide notification no. 08/2004-S.T. dated 09.07.2004. Hence, business auxiliary service provided by a commission agent in relation to sale or purchase of black tea is exempt from service tax.
CESTAT, Mumbai granted a refund claim for service tax to a real estate developer on behalf of an unregistered customer. The customer had paid the service tax along with an advance payment but, due to certain circumstances, the real estate purchase contract was subsequently cancelled.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that classification under 7204 for ‘used rails’ declared as Heavy Melting Scrap is improper and the product is correctly classifiable under Heading 7302.
CESTAT Mumbai held that from the date of approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, the appeal filed by the applicant has abated and CESTAT has become functus officio in the matters relating to this appeal
CESTAT held that contract involving both supply of material and labour is a ‘Works Contract Service’ which was not taxable prior to June 1, 2007.
CESTAT Delhi held that unless payment has been made for an independent activity of tolerating an act under an independent arrangement entered into for such activity or tolerating an act, such payment will not constitute ‘consideration’ and such activities will not constitute ‘supply’.
CESTAT Hyderabad in Shakelly Venkat Chand Vs Commissioner of Customs, asserts Customs Broker’s accountability for their employee’s act of misrepresentation before Customs Authorities.
