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.
Held that there was no reason to disbelieve, the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence available before him as to the date on which the Reviewing Authority received the order. Appeal by department dismissed as time barred.
CESTAT Chennai held that reimbursable expenses cannot be subject to levy of service tax. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside as not sustainable
CESTAT Delhi in case of Quality Builders & Contractor vs Commissioner of Central Excise, set a new precedent for service tax refund claims.
Recent CESTAT Kolkata case, Lexmark International vs CGST & CX, highlighting significance of giving parties opportunity to present their cases and documents
In the case of Amneal Life Sciences Pvt Ltd Vs C.S.T. Service Tax, the CESTAT Ahmedabad granted a service tax refund for the renting of immovable property services. The appellant, a unit in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), sought a refund on the service tax paid for renting their manufacturing premises. The department rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the rent invoices were in the name of a different premises. However, the CESTAT accepted the appellant’s explanation and held that the refund should be allowed since renting of immovable property is an approved taxable service. The CESTAT also allowed the refund on consulting engineer services and dismissed the objection regarding the filing of declaration forms. Learn more about the case and its implications.
In the case of Oriental Trimex Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), CESTAT Delhi allowed interest on auction sale proceeds from the date of receipt of the amount by the Customs Department until the date of disbursal. The CESTAT held that the Revenue cannot adjust the redemption fine against the sale proceeds since the goods were not available for redemption. The appellant was entitled to the sale proceeds, reduced only by the amount of penalty.
CESTAT Chennai held that the fees collected for the course approved by the Industries Department is not leviable to service tax under Commercial Training and Coaching Services. Accordingly, matter remanded back to for denovo consideration
CESTAT Chennai held that the CENVAT Credit lying in balance as on the date of de-bonding of 100% EOU and conversion to DTA unit is transferable to the DTA unit
CESTAT Delhi held that demand unsustainable as difference between value of goods shown in ER-1 returns and balance sheet duly explained with sufficient evidence.
