Package tours commencing, operating and concluding entirely within the State of Jammu & Kashmir during the period October 2005 to September 2010 were outside the scope of levy under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the service tax demand confirmed for the normal period was set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that sugar exported out of India was exempt from the whole of the sugar cess under the 1993 exemption notification. Since the exports were undisputed, the Tribunal set aside the demand, interest, and penalty.
The CESTAT Chennai held that construction of individual houses for tsunami-affected persons does not fall within the definition of a residential complex and is therefore not liable to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the demand after following its earlier decisions on similar rehabilitation projects.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that bagasse is an agricultural waste and not a manufactured product, making Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules inapplicable. Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeals)’ order and dismissed Revenue’s demand for credit reversal, interest, and penalty.
CESTAT held that purchase invoices, GST returns, stock registers, and job work challans sufficiently established lawful ownership of the seized gold. The Tribunal ruled that the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act had been discharged, making confiscation and penalties unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA could not be imposed where the importer submitted all relevant documents, including an emission certificate from an authorized agency. The Tribunal ruled that failure to identify any deficiency during assessment was attributable to Customs, not the importer.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the actual user condition imposed through a DGFT Public Notice could not be enforced against imports under a transferable post-export DFIA. The Tribunal allowed the exemption and directed issuance of a certificate for revalidation of expired DFIAs.
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT credit on tippers could not be denied merely because they were received before their inclusion as capital goods. Since the vehicles were registered and put to use after 22.06.2010, the credit was held admissible.
CESTAT observed that the appellant executed complete government construction projects on a turnkey basis and was responsible for all aspects of implementation. Since the contracts were composite works contracts, the service tax demand failed.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 27A was payable because the refund of Extra Duty Deposit was not released within three months after the refund-determining orders. It ruled that delay in payment attracted statutory interest despite prolonged litigation.
