CESTAT Chandigarh held that the modular employment scheme is a vocational training programme and vocational training activity is outside the ambit of service tax, as exempted vide Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004.
CESTAT Chandigarh remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh re-consideration as cross-examination to key witnesses was not allowed.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the interest of justice would be properly served if the case goes back to the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate the case afresh as not allowing the cross-examination of key witnesses vitiates the proceedings.
The CESTAT quashes penalty against SAB Industries Limited, ruling that service tax cannot be levied under ‘Works Contract Service’ once demanded under ‘Commercial Construction Service’.
The CESTAT Chandigarh has ruled in favor of Mankoo Machine Tools in a pivotal case on SSI exemptions. This decision clarifies that family surnames can be used across separate entities without forfeiting SSI exemptions.
The recent ruling by CESTAT on Chandigarh Transport Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Excise has declared that the collection of Adda fee by transport corporations as part of statutory functions does not amount to “Business Auxiliary Service” (BAS).
Explore the CESTAT’s recent ruling in the case of Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills vs Commissioner of Central Excise, where the tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim for Educational Cess due to its exclusion in the area-based exemption notification.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that collection of toll by the assessee would not be considered as Business Auxiliary Service provided to NHAI as the assessee is not rendering any service which is incidental or auxiliary on behalf of NHAI and the NHAI is not undertaking any business activity.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax on ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation service’ even if the main contractor has discharged Service Tax liability on the activity undertaken by the subcontractor.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the Registration under a particular service is not necessary for the purpose of claiming exemption under Notification No. 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007.
