An in-depth examination of the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs K.V. Paints & Chemicals Co., where CESTAT ruled on the validity of tax proceedings against a deceased individual.
The case of M. Pandidurai Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in CESTAT Chennai sheds light on the significance of upholding principles of natural justice in tax proceedings, setting a significant legal precedent.
CESTAT Chennai held that contract is for performance of the work and not for supply of manpower. Further, payments are for the works executed on tonnage basis/ unit basis and not on man hours or per person basis. Accordingly, service tax not payable on ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services’ (MRSAS).
CESTAT Chennai held that service tax could not be levied on ‘delayed payment charges’ collected by the appellant from their customers from 01.07.2012 also.
CESTAT Chennai held that collection of CVD on basis of retail sale price in terms of Notification No. 49/2008-C.E.(N.T.) dated 24.12.2008 issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in case of prepared glues and other prepared adhesives justified.
CESTAT’s decision clarifies that since the rent received by individual co-owners is below the specified threshold, there is no basis for imposing service tax on these amounts.
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.
