CESTAT Ahmedabad held that enhancement of value merely on the basis of NIDB (National Import Database) data without any other independent evidence is not acceptable.
CESTAT Chennai held that as per explanation to section 65(105)(zzzh) was added on 01/07/2010, builder/ developer/ promoter getting residential complex constructed for his customer and entering into individual agreements will be treated as deemed provider of construction of residential complex service. Accordingly, no liability of service tax will arise prior to 01/07/2010.
CESTAT Chennai held that services rendered to the domestic vendors by procuring orders from foreign companies rendered are classifiable under Support Services of Business or Commerce (SSBC) and not under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
CESTAT Chennai held that as per circular F. No. B43/1/97-TRU dated 06/06/1997 services provided by a licensed Custom House Agent in very broad way, to include any service provided to a client in relation to the entry or departure of conveyances or the import or export of goods. Accordingly, whole range of activity is covered under CHA service.
CESTAT Delhi held that an audit report cannot be regarded as an order of determination under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme. Accordingly, audit report is akin to an order of determination under the relevant sections of the Scheme.
CESTAT Delhi held that once the department has accepted that the services of appellant is classified under ‘mining services’, it cannot, simultaneously, classify the same under ‘Technical Testing and Analysis’ and demand service tax thereon.
CESTAT Chennai held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
CESTAT Chennai held that appellant for the first time submitted certificate from the buyer reflecting that price in the supply order is without excise duty and also certificate from Chartered Accountant establishing that incidence of duty has not been passed on. Accordingly, matter remanded for deciding refund on that basis.
CESTAT Chennai held that input service credit when distributed by the Input Services Distributor (ISD), cannot be held as inadmissible on the pretext that such invoices did not contain all the particulars as required in terms of Rule 4A of CCR 2004.
Servocraft HR Solutions Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai held that Show Cause Notice ought not to be issued when the assessee has paid Service Tax along with interest on being pointed out. Accordingly, penalty imposed under section 77 and section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 […]
