The issue was whether gross receipts should be treated as inclusive of service tax. The Tribunal held that where tax is not separately collected, cum-tax benefit must be granted. The matter was remanded for fresh computation.
The issue was whether missing country-of-origin markings could deny duty exemption. The Tribunal held that valid documents and identifiable goods suffice, allowing exemption.
The Tribunal examined whether leasing property to a company makes it taxable. It held that actual use determines taxability, not the identity of the lessee. Since the property was used for residential purposes, service tax demand was quashed.
The Tribunal held that margins earned from buying and selling cargo space are trading profits, not consideration for services. Such transactions on a principal-to-principal basis are not liable to service tax.
The Tribunal held that shared advertising expenses do not constitute sponsorship service. It ruled that absence of a service provider–recipient relationship negates tax liability.
The Tribunal held that expansion of an existing manufacturing unit cannot be treated as setting up a new factory. Credit was allowed as the services were directly linked to manufacturing and not covered under exclusion clauses.
CESTAT Chennai held that proportionate Cenvat Credit reversal under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules applies only in case of common input services. The same cannot be applied to credit exclusively used in manufacture of dutiable goods. Accordingly, demand held as unsustainable.
The tribunal held that sale through regional offices does not amount to trading. It found that the goods were manufactured and duty was paid. The ruling clarifies distinction between manufacturing and trading.
CESTAT Chennai held that clearance of personal computers from Special Economic Zone [SEZ] to Domestic Tariff Area [DTA] cannot be automatically classified as imported for personal use under CTH 9804 90 00 without discharging burden of proof. Accordingly, classification based on assumption set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal emphasized that adjudication must remain within the allegations contained in the notice. It found that introducing new evidence during adjudication amounted to substituting the original grounds.
