CESTAT Chennai held that a building or its part put up on land and which is used for car parking will get the benefit of the exclusion from levy of Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, refund claim allowed.
Vedanta Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Kolkata) The Appellants have exported Iron Ore Fines declaring the Fe content therein to be less than 64%. Under seven Shipping Bills exports were completed for different overseas importers during the period 2010-2011. Before the shipment, samples were drawn by Customs officials in the presence of the […]
CESTAT Allahabad held that in terms of rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in case appellant doesn’t appeal when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, dismiss the appeal for default.
CESTAT Chennai held that site formation activity done after obtaining General Power of Attorney (GPA) but before selling the land is leviable to service tax under the category of ‘Site formation and clearance service’.
CESTAT Delhi held that service tax is not chargeable on the services provided in respect of tour undertaken for carrying out Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia by Indian pilgrims considering these as export of service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that single invisible contract involving supply of raw material and construction activity is classified under works contract hence taxable only from 01.06.2007. However, in case of divisible works contract clearly defining value of service portion and raw material is classifiable under ‘Commercial and Industrial Construction’ prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT Delhi held that player fees paid to Ishant Sharma by M/s. Knight Riders Sports Private Limited under the contract is for the activity of playing cricket and not for any promotional activity. Hence, service tax not leviable on the same under ‘Business Support Service’.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in terms of rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, the abatement of duty deposited in advance is available in respect of one of the machines of the manufacturer which was not engaged in the manufacture of notified goods i.e. branded and unmanufactured tobacco without lime tube for continuous period of 15 or more days.
CESTAT Chennai held that enhancement of assessable value in absence of all the details the imports whose values have been relied upon as contemporaneous prices by the lower adjudicating authority is unsustainable as reasonability of the same cannot be decided.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation rightly invoked as collection of service tax but withholding the same without remitting to appropriate Government account establishes intention to evade payment of tax.
