Read about CESTAT Delhi’s decision in the case of Incredible Indian Moments Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner (Appeals) and Additional Director General, where Service Tax demand on tour operators was quashed.
CESTAT Delhi sets aside service tax demand on Goods Transport Agency Service, citing lack of evidence to prove service provided to NTPC. Full case analysis here.
CESTAT Delhi held that initiation of proceedings against Customs Broker alleging violation of regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licence Regulations, 2018 unjustified as he is not the party to alleged mis-declaration and undervaluation.
CESTAT Delhi held that service provided by technical, inspection and certification agency in relation to inspection and certification of export goods is liable to service tax under ‘Technical, Inspection and Certification Service’.
CESTAT Delhi held that once rule 10(b) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1944 gets applicable, residual rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1944 cannot be applied. Hence, demand confirmed under rule 11 is liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that absolute confiscation of the gold and imposition of penalty thereon justifiable on account of illicit smuggling of gold without any valid documents.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in case of production of a new retail sale price, duty is to be calculated on pro-rata basis, in the present case only four days, when the production has taken place.
CESTAT Delhi held that receipt of service doesn’t qualify as Manpower Supply Service and hence demand of service tax from service receipt under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) applicable to Manpower Supply Service unsustainable in law and hence liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per rule 4(b)(iii) of the point of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, in case payment is received before change in effective rate of tax and invoice is issued after change in effective rate of tax, then, point of taxation will be date of payment. Hence, demand set aside on advance receipt.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere non-disclosure of the receipts in the service tax return would not mean that there was an intent to evade payment of service tax. Hence, demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable.
