The Tribunal held that housekeeping services used for maintaining telecom equipment and business premises qualify as input services. Credit was allowed as the services were directly connected with the provision of telecommunication output services.
Tribunal held that third-party exports relied upon by EPCG licence holders for discharge of export obligation were valid under the FTP framework prevailing during the relevant period and that Customs authorities could not disregard subsisting EODCs restored by DGFT in the absence of independently established fraud.
The Tribunal held that service tax cannot be demanded again when the service provider has already collected and deposited the tax. The balance sponsorship service tax demand was therefore quashed.
The CESTAT Chennai held that where service tax was not separately recovered from recipients, the gross receipts must be treated as inclusive of tax under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The matter was remanded for fresh quantification.
CESTAT Chennai held that strict transaction-wise correlation between factory clearances and retail sales was impractical in the jewellery business. The Tribunal allowed discount abatement based on consolidated sales data and Chartered Accountant certificates.
Tribunal observed that where goods are sold on FOR destination basis, the buyer’s premises may constitute the place of removal. If established on facts, CENVAT credit on outward transportation services would be admissible.
CESTAT Chennai held that mere trading in air tickets did not amount to taxable “Tour Operator” service. The Tribunal ruled that retaining discounts on ticket sales was outside the scope of service tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that imported cold heading quality alloy steel products were classifiable as wire under CTH 7229 after undergoing cold drawing processes. The Tribunal ruled that denial of exemption and differential duty demand could not survive once the classification was found correct.
CESTAT Chennai held that services provided to SEZ units for authorised operations remain exempt from service tax even if part of the services are rendered outside SEZ premises. The Tribunal relied on Sections 26 and 51 of the SEZ Act to allow the appeal.
CESTAT Chennai held that service tax cannot be levied twice on the same commercial coaching and training services by taxing both the principal entity and its business partner. The Tribunal found that service tax had already been discharged by the principal service provider.
