The Tribunal found no merit in Customs’ objections relating to classification, labelling and port restrictions for the purpose of provisional release. The appeal was dismissed and release of the goods was ordered.
The Tribunal held that once an earlier show cause notice had been issued on the same issue, the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation again. The service tax demand and related liabilities were set aside.
The dispute concerned whether importers lose their right to contest enhanced valuation after submitting consent letters during customs clearance. CESTAT held that written acceptance does not extinguish the statutory right to challenge reassessment.
CESTAT held that operation and maintenance of drinking water plants for Nagar Nigams related to municipal water supply functions. The consideration received was therefore exempt under Entry 25 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax demand raised merely on differences between ST-3 returns and Income Tax Returns without proper examination of records was unsustainable in law.
Tribunal ruled that construction services relating to employee residential colonies were outside scope of commercial or industrial construction services during relevant period.
Tribunal found that the assessee had paid applicable R&D cess on royalty and technical know-how fees and had maintained supporting records. Exemption equivalent to service tax liability was therefore allowed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that electrical repair services provided to governmental entities is exempt from payment of service tax vide notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, the order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal set aside the demand as time-barred and unsupported by evidence beyond third-party income tax data. It held that absence of fraud or suppression invalidated extended limitation.
Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad) The appeal before the Tribunal arose from an Order-in-Appeal upholding a demand of ₹1,95,356 towards Service Tax for the financial year 2015–16, along with interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was registered for providing “Business Auxiliary Services.” Based on […]
