CESTAT Bangalore rules KLE Society’s services to Malaysian university qualify as export of services, overturning a substantial service tax demand. The tribunal cited precedent cases like Vodafone Idea and Verizon Communication, emphasizing the recipient’s location and foreign currency payments.
Matter relates to refund of duty paid consequent to re-classification of the aircraft parts imported. Commissioner’s (Appeals) rejected the appeals by holding that appellant did not deposit 7.5% of the duty or penalty disputed as per section 129 E of the customs act.
Hence, the matter need to be remanded to Commissioner (A) to decide the issue on merit. At this stage, the issue was pending for more than 10 years, therefore, a timeframe was necessary for disposal of the appeal.
CESTAT Bangalore held that imported coco beans which didn’t satisfied the quality standards were permitted to re-export and accordingly, redemption fine and penalty imposed on the same reduced.
Book entry/manner of book keeping cannot lead to demand of service tax; (ii) recoupment/booking of costs between two divisions of the same company cannot amount to provision of service as there is no service provider and no service receiver;
CIT (Appeals) held that assessee qualified as an ‘intermediary,’ making the services rendered ineligible for classification as ‘Export of Services’ under the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
CESTAT Bangalore held that no time limit has been prescribed under the statutory provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act hence circular no. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 cannot prescribe particular time period which is not provide u/s. 149.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the quantity of crude oil actually received into a shore tank in a port in India should be the basis for payment of customs duty. Thus, customs duty needs to be calculated based on crude oil received in shore tank.
The goods were re-exported in April 2005 after Customs clearance. Customs authorities issued a show-cause notice alleging non compliance with Notification No.158/95 and demanded duties and interest.
Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected the benefit of the Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
