The primary issue in contention was the Service Tax demanded on GTA services and whether it’s applicable in cases where no overcharges are made beyond the actual freight charges.
CESTAT Chennai upholds rebate for Vedanta Ltd on exported Anode Slime. Excise Duty demand negated following clarification on duty applicability.
CESTAT Chennai held that order of revocation of license as authorized courier unjustified as appellant didn’t played any role the impugned smuggling of gold and other commercial goods.
Examine the verdict by CESTAT Chennai concerning Sri Saraswathi Propeller Works’ case against GST & Central Excise, focusing on excise duty on steel structures.
CESTAT Chennai upheld the quashing of Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) for imported Diethyl Thio Phosphoryl Chloride based on the Customs Tariff Act nuances.
CESTAT Chennai supports Dalmia Cement’s refund claim due to the Customs Department’s delay in reviewing orders, marking an important legal precedent.
CESTAT Chennai held that Foreign Telecommunication Operator (FTO) is not the service receiver, but the visitors to India who use the service during their visit to India, are the service receiver and as per appellant’s own case the activity amounts to export of service and therefore, not exigible to Service Tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that cenvat credit availed on trading activity is not admissible, accordingly, cenvat credit admissible on common input services needs to be reversed by invoking the extended period of limitation.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation invoked as appellant suppressed provision of service falling under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation’ service with intention to evade payment of tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that merely billing customers for booking of space does not make one a Freight Forwarder. Therefore, the appellant whose activity has failed to establish his credential as a Freight Forwarder is found to satisfy the classification of Business Support Service. Accordingly, demand sustained.
