Tribunal reiterated that excise duty is a tax on the manufacture, not on the profits made by a dealer on transportation. Thus, the surplus freight charges collected from customers were excluded from the assessable value for excise duty calculation.
CESTAT Chennai held that concession fee paid by KPPL to the Puducherry Port is payment for the right to develop/ operate/ maintain the port including project facility. Accordingly, classifying the activity of Build Operate Transfer contract u/s 65(105)(zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 Support Services of Business or Commerce is unsustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that total CENVAT credit for the purpose of formula under Rule 6 (3A) is only the total cenvat credit on common input services and will not include CENVAT credit on input / input services exclusively used for the manufacture of dutiable goods.
CESTAT Chennai held that license fee are accruing to appellants is based on the turnover and profits of the hotel business. Accordingly, such transaction cannot be one of ‘renting of immovable property’ as the consideration is not like a regular rent but is dependent on the annual performance and profits of the hotel.
CESTAT Chennai held that black tea classifiable as agricultural product within the definition or meaning under notification no. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20.06.2003 as amended vide notification no. 08/2004-S.T. dated 09.07.2004. Hence, business auxiliary service provided by a commission agent in relation to sale or purchase of black tea is exempt from service tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that activity of loading cement, transporting to the godown and unloading the same is covered within the scope of Cargo Handling Service. Accordingly, service tax demand sustained.
CESTAT Chennai upheld the order in favor of Usha International Ltd in a case against the Commissioner of Customs. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation due to the department’s failure to submit the date of communication of the order.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand for extended period sustained as appellant collected service tax without registration and without filing of ST-3 returns and also failed to credit the amount collected into the Government account.
Held that there was no reason to disbelieve, the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence available before him as to the date on which the Reviewing Authority received the order. Appeal by department dismissed as time barred.
CESTAT Chennai held that reimbursable expenses cannot be subject to levy of service tax. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside as not sustainable
