CESTAT Chennai’s ruling on Ford India Pvt Ltd: No Service Tax on composite contracts for vehicle repair involving goods & services before 01.07.2012.
CESTAT Chennai held that a building or its part put up on land and which is used for car parking will get the benefit of the exclusion from levy of Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, refund claim allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that site formation activity done after obtaining General Power of Attorney (GPA) but before selling the land is leviable to service tax under the category of ‘Site formation and clearance service’.
CESTAT Chennai held that enhancement of assessable value in absence of all the details the imports whose values have been relied upon as contemporaneous prices by the lower adjudicating authority is unsustainable as reasonability of the same cannot be decided.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation rightly invoked as collection of service tax but withholding the same without remitting to appropriate Government account establishes intention to evade payment of tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that rejection of transaction/ declared value of impugned goods on the basis of contemporaneous imports without providing details relating to contemporaneous imports of goods is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Chennai held that violation of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 though stands established, the revocation of Customs Broker Licence is set aside as business and the livelihood of not only the appellant, but also its employees is adversely affected because of the suspension and revocation of the licence.
Ruling on service tax demand under ‘Auctioneer’ Service on commission by a cooperative society in conducting action. Details on the CESTAT Chennai’s verdict.
CESTAT Chennai held that agreement entered that the appellant is providing uplinking service for ‘SS Music channel’ and ‘Sur Sangeeth Channel’ is only a sham document. Appellant has disguised the rendering of Broadcasting Service under cover of uplinking service. Hence, service tax demand invoking extended period of limitation sustained.
Analysis of Surin Automotive vs CESTAT Chennai case. CESTAT’s decision that bill discounting facility is taxable not only by banks but also by a body corporate.
