CESTAT held that sharing telecast rights of horse racing events with other clubs against downlinking charges amounted to commercial exploitation of events. Service tax demand for the post-2010 period was upheld.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the imported aerosol generator formed part of a system used for physical and chemical analysis and was correctly classifiable under CTH 9027. The Tribunal ruled that the product did not independently control or regulate parameters required for classification under CTH 9032.
The Tribunal ruled that organising symposiums and providing support services for discussions on tropical diseases cannot be classified as Event Management Services. The order partially allowed the appeal while upholding tax on Scientific Consultancy Services.
CESTAT Bangalore held that differential service tax could not be demanded by reclassifying erection and installation services as Works Contract Service. The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly paid VAT on goods and service tax on the service component.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the Government department was aware of service tax liability because service tax had been specifically included in the project price bids. The Tribunal treated the project as an EPC contract falling under Works Contract Services.
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.
