CESTAT Chennai held that claim of wrong availment of abatement via ST-3 returns doesn’t amount to mis-declaration. Hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and demand for normal period sustained.
CESTAT Chennai held that duty burden is shifted to the appellant unit only because facility under rule 12BB is opted. Also, penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unwarranted when duty liability is paid with interest.
CESTAT Chennai held that ‘Squid Liver Powder’ being a high-quality feed ingredient for aqua feed and all type diet for animals, the product which is not for exclusive use for fish, prawn etc. has been correctly classified under CTH 23099090.
CESTAT Chennai held that the Chick drinker, Auto feeder, and Poultry cage are rightly classifiable under CETH 84361000 and not under CETH 39269099.
CESTAT Chennai held that as appellant is providing main service i.e. business support service on his own account and is not acting as an intermediary i.e. the services were performed by the appellant on a principal-to-principal basis and at arm’s length basis.
CESTAT Chennai held that renting of immovable property for a hotel is expressly excluded from the ambit of the taxable service in Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, demand not sustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that as fixed facility charges (FFC charges) are not in the nature of considered received for providing supply of tangible goods. Service tax is not payable on the same.
A detailed analysis of CESTAT Chennai’s decision in the Sesa Sterlite Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST case, focusing on the finalized ad valorem value of copper anode under Central Excise Rules.
Sundaram Industries Ltd wins appeal against imposition of service tax on clearing and forwarding agency services provided outside India as per a ruling by CESTAT Chennai.
CESTAT Chennai held that imposition of penalty unsustainable as non-payment of service tax on renting of immovable property service was on account of confusions and litigations.
