CESTAT Bangalore held that limitation for filing a service tax appeal depends on the actual date of communication of the order, not merely the date of issuance. The Tribunal remanded the matter after finding no proof of delivery of the adjudication orders.
CESTAT Bangalore remanded the case after finding that the Department had granted exemption on similar rental income for subsequent periods. The Tribunal directed fresh examination due to inconsistent appellate findings.
The Tribunal held that service tax applies only where a goods transport agency issues a consignment note. It ruled that transport by individual truck operators does not attract tax under GTA provisions.
The issue involved denial of service tax refund on employee insurance services in an SEZ unit. The Tribunal held that such insurance services fall within authorised operations and cannot be excluded.
The Tribunal held that dismissal of appeal as time-barred was improper without proof of order delivery. The matter was remanded for verification of communication date.
The issue was whether delay beyond three months barred conversion of shipping bills. The Tribunal held that circular-imposed time limits are not binding and allowed amendment to grant substantive benefits.
CESTAT held that secondment of employees is taxable as manpower supply service. However, it set aside extended period demands due to absence of suppression.
The issue involved denial of credit due to absence of ISD registration. The Tribunal held that this was a procedural lapse and cannot justify denial of substantive credit.
The dispute concerned agreements with buyers and instalment payments during construction. The Tribunal ruled that such transactions were self-service and not taxable before the 2010 amendment.
The issue concerned denial of CENVAT credit on services used across multiple units under centralized registration. The Tribunal held that Rule 7 permits distribution of credit subject only to limited conditions and does not restrict usage across units.
