CESTAT Chennai held that construction of residential quarters for the Tamil Nadu Police is not liable to service tax as it falls within the exclusion category. The Tribunal set aside the demand, interest, and penalties by following settled precedents.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of individual houses for Tsunami-affected people does not fall under ‘Construction of Complex Service. The service tax demand was therefore set aside.
The CESTAT Chennai held that construction of individual houses for tsunami-affected persons does not fall within the definition of a residential complex and is therefore not liable to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the demand after following its earlier decisions on similar rehabilitation projects.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of educational institutions up to 30 June 2012 was not taxable as the Department failed to prove the buildings were primarily for commerce or industry. The demand for that period was accordingly set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that the extended limitation period cannot be invoked where the Department itself disagreed with the CERA audit objection that triggered the show cause notice. The Tribunal ruled that the dispute was interpretational and the demand was therefore time-barred.
CESTAT Chennai held that the one-time 50% capital cost collected for water supply infrastructure qualified for exemption under Section 104 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal ruled that the department could not take a contrary view after granting the same exemption for earlier periods.
The Tribunal held that the mark-up earned on ocean freight represented profit and was not liable to service tax under Steamer Agent Services. It set aside the demand by following its earlier decision in the appellant’s own case.
CESTAT Chennai held that rejection of a VCES declaration was unsustainable because the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed 30-day period. The Tribunal set aside the rejection and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.
CESTAT Chennai held that an importer was entitled to concessional CVD under Notification No. 12/2012-CE because imported goods must be treated as if manufactured in India under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in SRF Ltd. and dismissed the Department’s appeal.
CESTAT Chennai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the earlier Tribunal decision had already ruled that service tax on works contract services for construction of educational institutions during the disputed period was unsustainable. The Tribunal found no basis to revive the demand by reclassifying the institutions.
