CESTAT Delhi allows interest on auction sale proceeds from date of receipt by Customs Department, till the date of disbursal, in Oriental Trimex Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) case.
CESTAT Chandigarh overturns dismissal of Johnsons Controls-Hitachi’s appeal by Commissioner of CGST on limitation grounds, citing lack of evidence for order passed and served date being the same.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as appellant had not outsourced services to the overseas entity, it cannot be said that services provided by overseas entity should be taxed under Business Support Service.
CESTAT Chennai held that activity of loading cement, transporting to the godown and unloading the same is covered within the scope of Cargo Handling Service. Accordingly, service tax demand sustained.
CESTAT Kolkata rules in favor of Aurora Fine Arts in a bonafide mistake case, exempting from penalty for a misdeclared EPCG license value, acknowledging voluntary duty and interest payment.
CESTAT Chennai upheld the order in favor of Usha International Ltd in a case against the Commissioner of Customs. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation due to the department’s failure to submit the date of communication of the order.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposing penalty under rule 209A against the person who is only involved in maintaining the accounts of the company is unjustified and unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that re-classification from ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Services’ to ‘works contract service’ justified as contract and VAT registration proves that contract is work contract service.
CESTAT Kolkata held that as mining services brought under the service tax net only with effect from 01/06/2007, service tax is not leviable on the same for the period prior to 01/06/2007.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand for extended period sustained as appellant collected service tax without registration and without filing of ST-3 returns and also failed to credit the amount collected into the Government account.
