CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as the service charges are based on metric tons of the goods handled and not on the basis of wages of laborers deployed for the job, the activity of the loading, unloading of goods at port, cutting of bags, spreading of zola, cleaning of jetty is classified under Cargo Handling Service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad order on Pharmanza India Pvt Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. case. Understand why manufacturing of drugs is not subject to business auxiliary service tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad in M D Engineers Vs C.C.E. & S.T. held that Service Tax penalty under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that merely on the basis of the bill of lading it cannot be inferred that the goods were originated from China as certificate of origin of Malaysia not proved wrong or fake.
Learn about the K S Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Customs appeal regarding denial of DFIA exemption. CESTAT Ahmedabad’s decision and analysis.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of manufacturing of tugs and barges cannot be classified as supply of manpower and hence cannot be taxed under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service.
CESTAT held that number of appeals should correspond with number of distinct decisions or orders, not number of order numbers in an original order. Essentially, if a single order-in-original has multiple numbers, it doesn’t necessitate multiple appeals.
The crux of the matter revolved around whether such programs, including outstation camps and other activities, are subject to service tax or can avail exemptions.
Analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad’s ruling in favor of Richa Particle Board Pvt Ltd. Highlights the excise duty exemption for Pre Laminated Bagasse Board.
In Transformers & Rectifiers India Ltd vs. C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii case, CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that third-party inspection charges are not part of assessable value. Analysis and conclusion included.
