CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the issue involved is of pure interpretation of legal provisions and classification of services therefore, in absence of any no mala fide intentions and suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of service tax, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the works contract service of construction of residential complex for JawaharLal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JnRUM) is not liable to service tax
In a case between Emtee Poly Yarn Pvt. Ltd. and C.C.E. & S.T. VAPI, CESTAT Ahmedabad sets aside demand for Excise Duty, citing a nil rate on the day of clearance.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that enhancement of value unsustainable as approximately same price for various other consignments imported at same time and have same quantity were accepted by the department.
The ruling emphasized that limitation should not apply in such cases and that the mere filing of an appeal by the department does not withhold the refund.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as DRI just prior to investigations by DGCEI took away all records pertaining to the import of scrap, the manufacturer cannot be expected to produce documents showing transport and receipt of the goods in the factory. Accordingly, demand of Cenvat alleging non-receipt of inputs set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that deduction given in sales invoice being discount, even though under nomenclature of commission, cannot be treated as commission for the purpose of levy of Service Tax under ‘business Auxiliary Service’.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty imposed under Sub-Regulation 8 of Regulation 12 cannot be inclined for lack of due diligence on the part of the employee of CFS especially when the department did not find anything wrong when compared to employees of other CFS.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of M/s. Sophisticated Instrumentation, a charitable trust, stating that the extended limitation cannot be invoked when there is no intention to evade service tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad dismisses Natural Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd’s appeal, upholding Service Tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service and rejecting financial hardship claim.
