In a case between ArcelorMittal Projects India Limited and C.C.-Mundra, the CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal of the appellant, stating that the limitation period for refund calculation should be determined according to Section 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services related to construction of roads etc. the Government authorities/ agencies are covered under Mega Exemption of Service Tax notification no. 25/2012-ST and hence demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in Heena Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, activities like construction & fabrication as sub-contractor for bridges, railways, etc., not taxable under ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation’ service, based on bona fide belief and reasonable grounds.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the transaction value declared by the importer should form the basis of assessment unless the same is rejected, for reasons set out in Rules of Customs Valuation Rules.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services of Construction of residential complex to the Municipal Corporation of Surat under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission which is not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services availed in respect of effluent treatment plant for treatment of industrial waste is in relation to the overall manufacturing activity and hence CENVAT Credit is duly admissible.
Read the full text of the CESTAT Ahmedabad order in the case of Rajkot District Co Operative Bank Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. The issue revolved around the liability to pay service tax on the commission received by the appellant from the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited. The order analyzes the applicability of an exemption notification and concludes that the appellant is eligible for the exemption, therefore not liable to pay service tax on the commission received.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that building constructed by the Appellant is not commercial and industrial construction, therefore does not fall under the category of taxable services, as the same is not used for commercial and industry but it is used for providing education.
A thorough review of the CESTAT Ahmedabad case between Kandla Port Trust and C.C.E. & Kutch (Gandhidham) where the CESTAT quashed the order as the SCN was time-barred.
In the case between Shital Ispat Pvt Ltd and C.C.-Jamnagar, CESTAT Ahmedabad orders re-consideration, stating the one-year period for filing a refund begins from the date of finalizing the bill of entry in instances of initial provisional assessment.
