CESTAT Kolkata held that payment received towards Licensing Fee from mobile towers cannot be considered as ‘rent’ to fall within the definition of ‘renting of immovable property’. Accordingly, service tax demand to that extent set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 [CBLR] justified as Customs Broker failed to intimate department about mis-declaration of weight in imported goods. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Chennai held that royalty payment not connected with the condition of sale is not includible in the assessable value. Hence, invocation of rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 not justified.
CESTAT Chennai held that royalty fixed at percentage of net sales is not includible in transaction value of goods imported under rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 as royalty paid is not related to imported goods. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that service tax demand on the service of Multi System Operator provided to cable TV operator is sustainable. Further, since there was suppression of facts to evade payment of service tax, extended period of limitation is duly invoked.
The appellant appears to have given a discount on the gross value of the exports which was reflected in the invoice raised by the appellant as well and hence, appellant received 97% of the gross value of the export in its bank account (Bank of Maharashtra).
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114AB of the Customs Act couldn’t be imposed merely on the basis of statement made under section 108 since it cannot be considered as evidence u/s. 138B of the Customs Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
The appellant is engaged in providing construction of commercial or industrial building services. It claims to have discharged service tax on this service. It is also in receipt of legal and professional services, and works contract service which are chargeable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-determining the value under residual provisions of rule 9 of the Customs Valuation rules without rejecting the transaction value is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as evidence under section 138B of the Customs Act. Accordingly, demand based on the statement recorded cannot be sustained. Thus, order set aside and appeal allowed.
