CESTAT Delhi sustained the service tax demand after finding that the royalty amounts were based on receipts acknowledged by the appellant’s Director. The Tribunal held that the demand covered only amounts actually received.
CESTAT Delhi held that overseas liaison offices functioning merely as communication channels cannot be treated as separate service providers to their Indian head office. The Tribunal set aside service tax demands on reimbursements and emphasized that one cannot provide services to oneself.
The ruling clarifies that consignment notes carry legal significance under the Finance Act and Service Tax Rules for determining GTA status. Without such documents, a transporter cannot be subjected to service tax as a Goods Transport Agency.
Where an EPCG licence holder becomes incapable of fulfilling export obligations due to unavoidable circumstances such as SARFAESI auction of imported assets, levy of interest and penalty cannot be sustained, particularly when customs duty has already been recovered through encashment of bank guarantees. Tribunal upheld only the customs duty demand while setting aside confiscation, interest and penalty.
CESTAT Delhi held that works contract services used for repair and maintenance of existing plant and machinery qualify as input services. The Tribunal ruled that the exclusion under Rule 2(l) applies only to construction-related activities involving buildings or civil structures.
The Tribunal held that a medicine containing Ergotamine was merely a preparation and not “Ergotamine and its salts” under Schedule-B of the NDPS Order. As no NOC was required, the penalty imposed on the Customs Broker was quashed.
CESTAT Delhi held that food testing kits were wrongly described as being for “diagnostic use only” to claim a customs exemption. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, extended limitation period, and penalties.
The Tribunal held that ledger entries and computer records recovered from a third party were insufficient to establish liability under Section 112(b). Independent corroborative evidence was necessary to sustain the penalty.
The Tribunal set aside a penalty under Section 114(iii) after finding no evidence that the Customs Broker knew of or participated in the alleged overvaluation of export goods. The ruling emphasizes that penalties require proof of involvement or abetment.
CESTAT Delhi held that contracts involving execution of work along with use of materials were correctly classifiable as works contract services and upheld the reduced service tax demand.
