The motor vehicles need not be used exclusively for providing cargo handling or other listed services. The mere fact that they have also used motor vehicles for some other purposes does not deprive them of their CENVAT Credit on motor vehicles.
Commissioner of Customs Vs Reliance JioInfocom Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) In the present case, the manufacturer of Antenna as well as the chartered engineer’s certificate, in clear terms clarified that the Antenna in question transmits and receives only signals and not performing any other function like conversion or regeneration of voice, images or other data signals […]
CESTAT Chennai has allowed refund of excess amount paid by mistake as pre-deposit by the assessee. It observed that when the legislature made it clear what is to be collected as pre-deposit, in the absence of any finding about non-satisfaction of conditions as to pre-deposit, the department cannot retain such excess amount remitted by mistake.
‘Casino vessels’ could not be classified as ‘pleasure boats’ as the vessel was a supply vessel used for transport of persons and goods, the correct classification would be heading no. 8901 90 00 which covers’ Other vessels for transport of the goods and other vessels for transport of both persons and goods’ and not under heading No. 8903 9990. More so, the goods falling under heading no. 8901 were exempted under Not. 21/2002 read with Notification No. 20/2006.
Shri. Haji Sumar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai has held that the transaction value adopted by the importer cannot be rejected merely based on export declarations received from Turkish Customs, public ledger and Commodity Trade Statistics Data (Comtrade). Shri. Haji Sumar, who is one of the partners of M/s. Diamond Traders, has […]
Show Cause Notice mentions the leviablity of Service tax on the amount received towards the compensation for non supply of the agreed quantity of manganese ore under Section 64E(e) of Finance Act which is even otherwise is purely the transaction sale of the iron ore to the Appellant by M/s Amit Mines. Thus, the compensation amount is towards default on the sale of the goods. The sale could not be effected and, therefore, Appellant received the liquidated damage by way of raising the debit note which was honoured by M/s AML. Thus, this amount of compensation/ liquidated damage cannot be treated as service under Section 64 E(e) of the Act.
Max Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi has held that service tax was not payable on surrender charges deducted from the fund value of policy holder on pre-mature withdrawal, as it was not for asset management but a penalty. The Tribunal, considering clarification by CBEC […]
CESTAT Mumbai has allowed refund of Cenvat credit on export of Scientific & Technical Consultancy services. Considering the pricing method, it held that Rule 3 and not Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 was applicable.
CESTAT Delhi has held that mere cabling of various parts of agricultural machine (laser level transmitter, laser receivers, control boxes connecting cables and rechargeable battery packs) so as to let them function as a complete machine does not amount to manufacture and hence benefit of Sl. No. 399(A) of Not No. 12/2012-Cus. cannot be denied.
t is apparently clear that appellant was providing cleaning service through manpower engaged under its control and supervision and not supplied manpower to the service receiver to undertake cleaning service under the control and supervision of the service receiver and and the same cannot be treated as Manpower, recruitment or Supply Services.
