CESTAT Delhi held that tax authorities cannot compel an assessee to adopt a particular compliance option under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Since the appellant had availed only proportionate eligible credit, the demand under Rule 6(3) was set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the respondent had paid the Service Tax before availing CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices. Finding no error in the adjudicating authority’s order, it dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
CESTAT held that leasing vacant land prior to 1 July 2010 was outside the scope of “Renting of Immovable Property Service” under the then-existing law. The Tribunal set aside the demand and penalties except for the tax already collected and appropriated.
CESTAT held that although Customs rightly rejected the declared transaction value, the re-determination of value was invalid because Rule 8 was applied without following the mandatory sequential valuation rules. Only the duty demand relating to leather straps was sustained.
CESTAT held that once shipping bills were assessed and Let Export Orders were issued, customs authorities could not subsequently modify those assessments without following the statutory remedies. The Tribunal consequently set aside the denial of DEPB benefits and related demands.
After ruling that the extended limitation period was invalidly invoked, CESTAT held that it was unnecessary to consider the substantive service tax and CENVAT credit issues. The appeals were allowed on limitation alone.
The CESTAT Kolkata held that the Revenue failed to establish suppression of facts or intent to evade Service Tax during a period of legal uncertainty over the taxability of renting immovable property. It consequently set aside the entire demand as time-barred.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of police quarters for the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation is excluded from service tax. It set aside the tax demands after following earlier Tribunal decisions on the same issue.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of residential quarters for the Tamil Nadu Police is not liable to service tax as it falls within the exclusion category. The Tribunal set aside the demand, interest, and penalties by following settled precedents.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of individual houses for Tsunami-affected people does not fall under ‘Construction of Complex Service. The service tax demand was therefore set aside.
