The Tribunal held that courses imparting practical skills qualify as vocational training even without guaranteed employment, allowing exemption under the notification.
CESTAT Bangalore held that limitation for filing a service tax appeal depends on the actual date of communication of the order, not merely the date of issuance. The Tribunal remanded the matter after finding no proof of delivery of the adjudication orders.
CESTAT Delhi held that providing buses with drivers to RSRTC did not amount to Rent-a-Cab Service since operational control remained with the owner. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand and penalties.
CESTAT Bangalore remanded the case after finding that the Department had granted exemption on similar rental income for subsequent periods. The Tribunal directed fresh examination due to inconsistent appellate findings.
CESTAT Chennai held that payment of Special Additional Duty is mandatory before claiming refund under Notification No. 102/2007. The Tribunal dismissed the importer’s challenge against SAD demand on imported silk fabrics.
CESTAT Delhi held that amounts received by a recovery agent from a lender were taxable as service consideration since no documentary evidence of a joint venture existed. The Tribunal upheld service tax demand, interest, and penalty.
The CESTAT Delhi held that polyester knitted fabric containing a small percentage of spandex could not be treated as mis-declared goods. The Tribunal ruled that such minor composition variation did not justify confiscation under the Customs Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that imported ABS motors and sensors were capable of being used in motor vehicles and therefore excluded from concessional customs duty benefits. The Tribunal ruled that the exemption notification must be interpreted strictly.
CESTAT Delhi held that overburden removal, excavation, and lignite loading formed part of integrated mining operations taxable only after introduction of “Mining Services” from 01.06.2007. The Tribunal ruled that incidental activities could not be separately taxed under site formation services.
The Tribunal held that delayed submission of required certificates constituted a procedural lapse without intent to evade duty. It reduced penalties and redemption fine. The ruling emphasizes leniency in technical non-compliance cases.
