The CESTAT Mumbai held that services relating to outbound tours conducted entirely outside India were not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. It concluded that journeys commencing and ending outside India fell outside the statutory charging provisions.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of educational institutions up to 30 June 2012 was not taxable as the Department failed to prove the buildings were primarily for commerce or industry. The demand for that period was accordingly set aside.
The Tribunal held that late fees could not be imposed where supplementary Bills of Entry were filed due to excess cargo discovered after clearance and the delay was not attributable to the importer. It ruled that Section 46(3) permits waiver in deserving cases.
CESTAT Chennai held that the extended limitation period cannot be invoked where the Department itself disagreed with the CERA audit objection that triggered the show cause notice. The Tribunal ruled that the dispute was interpretational and the demand was therefore time-barred.
CESTAT Bangalore held that renting residential premises to an educational institution for use as student hostels qualifies for exemption under Section 66D(m). The Tribunal ruled that the ultimate residential use of the property, not the identity of the lessee, determines eligibility for exemption.
CESTAT Chennai held that the one-time 50% capital cost collected for water supply infrastructure qualified for exemption under Section 104 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal ruled that the department could not take a contrary view after granting the same exemption for earlier periods.
The Tribunal held that the mark-up earned on ocean freight represented profit and was not liable to service tax under Steamer Agent Services. It set aside the demand by following its earlier decision in the appellant’s own case.
CESTAT Bangalore upheld the classification of dynamic braking assemblies and components under CETH 8607 as parts of railway locomotives. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s predominant or sole-use test and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal seeking classification under CETH 8414 and 8516.
CESTAT held that the exporter established complete correlation between the exported, re-imported and re-exported frozen buffalo meat through documentary evidence and departmental supervision. It set aside the customs duty demand, redemption fine and penalties after finding compliance with Notification No. 158/95-Cus.
CESTAT Chennai held that rejection of a VCES declaration was unsustainable because the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed 30-day period. The Tribunal set aside the rejection and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.
