CESTAT Chandigarh held that CENVAT Credit on inputs used in generation of electricity is admissible only to the extent the electricity produced and utilized in the factory of production and not on the portion of electricity transferred/sold to the grid.
The Tribunal held that commission earned for promoting foreign universities qualifies as export of services and does not fall within Rule 2(f) definition of intermediary service. Demand, interest, and penalties were set aside.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that CENVAT Credit in respect of input / input services used for construction of building which itself is to be used in the provision of output service of Renting of Immovable Property is admissible. Accordingly, order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the demand of service tax on adda-fees under the category of ‘business support services’ is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, order is liable to be set aside and appeals are allowed.
The Tribunal held that post-clearance discounts supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate cannot be rejected without evidence. Revenue’s disallowance based on assumptions was found unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that Service Tax cannot be levied merely on reimbursement figures taken from accounts without evidence of a taxable service. Reimbursement of Convention expenses was held outside the tax net.
The Tribunal upheld customs reclassification of imported goods from scarves to capes based on HSN notes and expert opinion. The key takeaway is that statutory tariff definitions override market practice.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that suspension of customs broker license is liable to be quashed since timelines to be adhered by the officers while suspending or revoking the license of the Customs Broker as prescribed under CBLR, 2018 are not followed.
Tribunal ruled that provisional assessments cannot be finalised after an inordinate delay and set aside duty demand raised more than five years later without justification.
The Tribunal held that allegations of mis-declaration and under-valuation were unsupported by evidence. The redemption fine and penalty were set aside as the valuation acceptance was attributed to clearance delays.
