CESTAT Chennai held that cenvat credit availed on trading activity is not admissible, accordingly, cenvat credit admissible on common input services needs to be reversed by invoking the extended period of limitation.
CESTAT Allahabad held that tribunal has no jurisdiction to prescribe the rate of interest which is prescribed by the Government of India in terms of Notification issue under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation invoked as appellant suppressed provision of service falling under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation’ service with intention to evade payment of tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that order passed without assigning any reasons is non-speaking order and, accordingly, the same is bad-in-law and is liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that merely billing customers for booking of space does not make one a Freight Forwarder. Therefore, the appellant whose activity has failed to establish his credential as a Freight Forwarder is found to satisfy the classification of Business Support Service. Accordingly, demand sustained.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant are entitled for the interest from the 3 months of the order of the tribunal till the refund of pre-deposit was granted.
CESTAT Allahabad held that any delay in filing of an appeal beyond the extended period of thirty days after expiry of normal period of sixty days, cannot be condoned
CESTAT Kolkata held that duty demand alleging overvaluation cannot be sustained as authority didn’t considered details of Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) which establishes full realization of value of export invoices from overseas importer.
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on Employees Health Insurance and Group Accidental Insurance Policy is within the scope and ambit of input service as provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand of service tax on reimbursement of expenditure by the ship owner goes beyond the mandate of Section 67 the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, demand of service tax confirmed u/r 5 doesn’t survive as rule 5 itself has been held to be ultra vires of section 67.
