Jai Ba Metals Vs CCE (CESTAT Chandigarh) – Rule 9 will not be applicable When the goods are sold to related persons as well as to independent buyers
In case of Channel Management and Marketing vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, CESTAT Chandigarh asserts that extended period cannot be invoked as principal paid service tax on behalf of agent.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that Cost Accountant certificate certifying incidence of duty has not been passed on cannot be disregarded unless it is proved to be blatantly wrong.
CESTAT Chandigarh’s ruling in Lufthansa German Airlines vs. Commissioner of Service Tax clarifies that service tax doesn’t apply to passenger service fees & airport taxes.
The CESTAT Chandigarh rules that providing a bank guarantee to group companies does not attract service tax. Learn more about this decision.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that penalty u/s. 112 not imposable as goods are not held liable for confiscation. Further, penalty cannot be imposed on EOUs for failure to achieve positive NFE.
Demand of service tax for the period from 1st April 2003 to March 2005 was prima facie wrong because appellant had started rendering services to M/s IBP Co. Ltd. from 01.09.2005 as was clear from the agreement dated 01.09.2005 which had been accepted in the order-in-original.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that refund of service tax on CHA services; transportation of goods by Road services; port services paid for export of goods is duly allowable.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that benefit of notification no. 01/10-CE dated 06.02.2010 cannot be denied as commercial production from expanded capacity commenced on or after 06.02.2010.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that Travel Agency Service, AMC Photocopy Machines and Broadband services used for the purpose of business and not for any personal use is eligible for CENVAT Credit.
