CESTAT held that while excise duty on royalty was payable for the normal period, no interest could be levied and duty on Stowing Excise Duty was set aside.
CESTAT held composite works contracts were not liable to service tax before 1 June 2007, quashing the demand, interest, and penalties.
CESTAT ruled that wrongly availed CENVAT credit could not discharge June 2017 excise liability and sustained duty recovery with interest.
CESTAT set aside the Service Tax demand after finding that trading turnover was wrongly treated as taxable service and VAT records were ignored.
CESTAT held Sections 11B and 11BB inapplicable as the refunded amount was not Service Tax, directing payment of 12% interest on delayed refunds.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalties, liquidated damages and forfeiture of deposits recovered for contractual breaches are not consideration for a declared service under Section 66E(e). The service tax demand, interest and penalty were set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that liquidated damages recovered for delayed contractual performance are neither a taxable service nor consideration. The service tax demand, interest, and penalties were set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that encashment of a bank guarantee for shortfall in Minimum Guarantee Tonnage is not consideration for tolerating an act under Section 66E(e). The service tax demand and penalty were therefore set aside.
CESTAT remanded the excise case after holding that retrospective exemption under the Finance Act, 2015 required fresh adjudication of the duty demand.
CESTAT held voyage charter agreements were contracts for transportation of goods, not supply of tangible goods. The service tax demand was set aside.
