CESTAT Chennai held that nature of service involving both service as well as transfer of property in goods/material is classifiable under ‘works contract. Hence re-classifying the same under erection, commission and installation is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Chennai held that where the value has already been split as per the state law and VAT has been paid on the goods component of the composite works contract, no service tax can be levied on such component again taking recourse to Rule 2A(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
CESTAT Chennai ruling on classifying magnesite collection as mining services. Analysis of KRSS Manpower Service vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise.
Read full text of CESTAT Chennai order in N.M. Zackriah & Co. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, emphasizing need for strict compliance with exemption conditions
CESTAT Chennai delivers relief to Vedanta Limited, ruling that no Service Tax is leviable when no consignment note is issued to the service recipient.
CESTAT Chennai held that as per Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (CVR, 2007), “general expenses” in connection with sales in India are to be deducted from the sale price of imported goods/ identical/similar imported goods while arriving at the deductive value of the goods.
CESTAT Chennai held that as there is no tax liability on the advance amount received by the appellant, demand of interest thereon unsustainable.
Analysis of Alstom T & D India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise case, exemption from excise duty, and CESTAT Chennai’s decision.
Analysis of the CESTAT Chennai ruling in Commissioner of Customs vs. GH Induction India Pvt. Ltd. regarding exclusion of royalty and technical know-how fees from assessable value for customs duty calculation.
Analyze CESTAT Chennai order in Hi Tours Mamallapuram Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, focusing on non-taxability of mark-up for booking domestic travel tickets.
