Issue was whether reimbursement of advertisement expenses constitutes taxable service under BAS. Tribunal held that cost-sharing without a service provider–recipient relationship is not taxable and set aside demand.
The Tribunal found that effective control and possession of tanks rested with customers, excluding the transaction from supply of tangible goods service. The demand was set aside accordingly.
The tribunal ruled that the six-month limit introduced in 2014 cannot be applied to invoices issued before the amendment, as it would retrospectively restrict an accrued credit entitlement.
The tribunal ruled that discounts offered on demo vehicles cannot reduce assessable value since the vehicles are identical to normal cars cleared to dealers.
The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, appeals relating to claims not included in the plan cannot continue.
CESTAT Chennai held that service tax credit on business support and management consultancy services cannot be denied as such services fall within “activities relating to business,” making them eligible input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules.
CESTAT Chennai ruled that contracts for executing specific jobs on piece-rate or output basis do not qualify as manpower supply services, making the service tax demand under reverse charge unsustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that export benefit cannot be denied unilaterally by the Customs authorities. Thus, unilateral denial of DEPB benefits by Customs authority not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
The Tribunal held that renting a building for operating a hotel falls within the statutory exclusion under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the service tax demand on the leased hotel property was set aside.
The Tribunal held that once the Order-in-Original is set aside, the penalty imposed under that order cannot survive independently and must depend on the outcome of fresh adjudication.
