CESTAT Delhi held that the service tax is not applicable to the services provided in the State of J&K irrespective of the service provider being from the said State or otherwise. Accordingly, service tax is not leviable on Consulting Engineering Services rendered to the clients for construction of road in the State of J&K.
CESTAT Delhi held that entire demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable as show cause notice was issued after more than two years of the facts coming to the knowledge of the department.
CESTAT Delhi held that work orders include the charge supply of goods and fixing and finishing of tiles/granite/marbles such composite contracts involving both supply of goods and services are rightly classifiable under ‘work contract services’.
CESTAT Delhi held that where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgement decree order or direction of appellate authority Appellate Tribunal or any Court, the date of such judgement decree, order or direction shall be the relevant date.
CESTAT Delhi has remanded a case involving National Engineering Industries Ltd. back for reconsideration. The dispute concerns the wrongful availment of Cenvat credit on ineligible services.
CESTAT Delhi held that the appellant can duly avail the credit of service tax paid on rail freight on the strength of the certified copy of railway receipts read with Monthly Consolidated Certificates and STTG certificate issued by the Western Central railway.
CESTAT Delhi held that service of wireline logging, perforation and other mechanical job is covered under mining service only with effect from 01.06.2007. Accordingly, such services cannot be classified under ‘technical testing and analysis’ and taxed prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT Delhi held that the Cenvat credit for the insurance premium paid in respect of the group insurance/insurance of employees including retired employees/mediclaim is duly available as the same is having nexus to the business of the assessee.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that where a principal manufacturer did not file the requisite undertaking to the jurisdictional authority in terms of Notification No. 214/86, then the job worker was liable to pay the duty on the goods manufactured.
CESTAT Delhi held that change of name from “safranal” to K-100 does not amount to be an act of mis-declaration as there is no evidence of evasion of customs duty.
