The Tribunal examined whether fund transfers to overseas branches constituted taxable services. It found no evidence of any service being rendered or received in India. The ruling held that mere transfer of funds for operational expenses does not attract service tax.
The issue was whether supply of water to vessels is a sale or a service. The Tribunal held that such supply forms part of port services and is taxable prior to 01.07.2010. It upheld the tax demand based on statutory provisions and CBEC clarification.
The Tribunal held that whether conversion of GI wire into barbed wire and mesh amounts to manufacture requires fresh evaluation. It set aside earlier orders due to incomplete analysis. The case was remanded for re-examination of all issues.
The issue was whether post-manufacturing expense deductions on a weighted average basis are admissible. The Tribunal held that earlier rulings in the same case had settled the issue, leading to cancellation of demand and penalties.
Issue was whether reimbursement of advertisement expenses constitutes taxable service under BAS. Tribunal held that cost-sharing without a service provider–recipient relationship is not taxable and set aside demand.
Tribunal held that builders were not liable to service tax before 01.07.2010 based on statutory provisions and Board circulars. It set aside demand for disputed period accordingly.
The Tribunal held that failure to intimate the Superintendent under Rule 6(3A) does not invalidate proportionate credit reversal. It clarified that such intimation is procedural and not a substantive condition.
The Tribunal found that effective control and possession of tanks rested with customers, excluding the transaction from supply of tangible goods service. The demand was set aside accordingly.
The Tribunal examined whether threshing and redrying of tobacco leaves fall under Business Auxiliary Services. It held that the activity is not taxable, setting aside the demand.
The Tribunal examined whether gold coin sales amounted to consignment agent services. It held that the activity was trading involving transfer of title and not a taxable service.
