Commercial training or coach services that were provided by the Institute of Clinical Research (ICR) were liable to service tax as Commissioner had recorded a finding, after careful examination of the activities undertaken by the Indian Institute that it was providing training or coaching for a consideration. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner to decide whether out of the total demand that had been confirmed, Indian Institute would be entitled to the benefit of – Input credit of the expenses incurred as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; and the value of study material supplied; and cum-tax benefit under section 67 of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that area based exemption in terms of Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 available as manufacture of High Security Registration Plates is concluded in Himachal Pradesh only.
CESTAT Delhi held that demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable as demand is based on the records of the assessee or other records which DGCEI could obtain through income tax department. Scrutiny of such records should have been done within time limit.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi order on Nagar Parishadservice tax case. Details on charges, legal arguments, and penalties. Analysis of the verdict and its implications.
CESTAT Delhi held that demand of service tax under rule 6(7) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 by adding the amount of fuel surcharge to the air fare for the purpose of determining the basic fare unsustainable as commission was paid on air fare only and not on air fare plus fuel surcharge.
CESTAT Delhi held that Wireless Access Points which works on technology and doesn’t support LTE is exempted from whole of customs duty under serial 13(iv) of the notification dated 01.03.2005.
CESTAT Delhi held that the values declared by the exporter before the Chinese authorities was much higher than the values declared in the Bills of Entry and appellant has failed to produce any cogent document to disprove the allegation of mis-declaration in the export declaration.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT Credit alleging non-receipt of goods based on statements without following procedure prescribed under section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is unjustified and unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that the goods exported under LUT are admittedly imported within six months of the export then there is no liability to pay tax on re-import.
CESTAT Delhi held that Wireless Access Point is classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8517 62 90 and accordingly is entitled to exemption from Basic Customs Duty under serial no. 13 of notification dated 01.03.2005 as amended by notification dated 11.07.2014.
