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.
CESTAT Delhi held that the Ranger (non-electric) Vehicles deserve to be classified under CTH 8704 and Ranger (electric) and Brutus Vehicles deserve to be classified under CTH 8709.
CESTAT Delhi held that order passed by Commissioner (A) is without jurisdiction as the appeal is filed by the department before the Commissioner (A) against an order the correctness of which stood decided against the department by the Delhi High Court.
CESTAT Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Here, it was merely suppression of facts but intent to evade payment of service tax was absent.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere use of the word “commission” in the clause dealing with terms of payment would not mean that “commission” was paid by the seller. The goods were sold on principal to principal basis and payment to buyer was expenses incurred by overseas buyer and not commission. Hence, service tax not payable.
