The respondent/importer had filed three bills of entry dated 27.01.2021 for clearance of imported goods Zinc Scrap, Saves/Scope which were imported from M/s Olympic Metal, Miami, USA. As the Department noticed that the declared value of the goods was lower than the contemporaneous import of similar goods and that the sale involved an abnormal discount and abnormal rejection from ordinary competitive prices, a query was raised from the importer to provide material/evidence to justify the declared value in terms of Section 17(3) of the Customs Act, 1962
CESTAT Chennai held that Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company paying Commission to unapproved dealers in the guise of receipt of ‘data processing and policy servicing and related activities’ service. Accordingly, since such service is not received by the company they are ineligible to avail CENVAT Credit of the same.
CESTAT Kolkata held that charge of clandestine removal of goods without sufficient, cogent and tangible evidence is unsustainable. In the present case, the Revenue has not brought in any evidence to corroborate the allegation that the Appellant were the actual manufacturers of the cigarettes. Accordingly, demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that commission earned on services provided to foreign entity for products sold in India is ‘export of service’ and accordingly exempt from service tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that location from where the service is provided is immaterial for availing the Cenvat credit on input services.
CESTAT Chennai held that service of ERP implementation falls under the category of ‘Information Technology Service’ and the same is taxable only with effect from 16.05.2008. Accordingly, such services received from abroad is leviable to service tax on reverse charge only from 16.05.2008.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that activity of transportation and disposal of ash cannot be classified under taxable category of ‘Cleaning Services’. Accordingly, demand of service tax unsustainable.
CESTAT rules in favor of Shivani Detergent Pvt. Ltd., upholding the CENVAT credit for erection & commissioning of a spray drying plant as ‘input service’.
Delve into the CESTAT Chennai’s decision: Lapse or failure to comply with CBLR does not attract penalties under sections 114 & 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Read about the case of Ultratech Cements Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot in CESTAT Ahmedabad, where discrepancies between the SCN and adjudication order lead to a re-adjudication process.
