CESTAT Delhi held that allocation of area development charges by the State Government to the appellant to meet up its administrative expenses without performance of any service in exchange of the amount cannot be treated as consideration towards a service.
Delhi High court held that in case there is supply or deemed supply of goods and rendering service, the same will fall within the ambit of works contract service regardless of whether or not VAT or service tax is payable.
Manufacture requires that a new distinct marketable goods should be produced.So long as a new and distinct commodity known to the market is produced, the process amounts to manufacture and not otherwise.
No service tax can be levied on the amount collected towards liquidated damages or penalty for breach of any of the terms of the contract.
CESTAT Delhi held that maintenance of pipelines are not exempted under any notification or provision or circular. Accordingly, the same is taxable under the category of ‘management, maintenance and repair’ services.
DEPB licences sold by the appellant were based on fabricated documents showing export of goods to Bangladesh through Land Customs Station
Credit availed by an assessee cannot be denied or varied on the ground that the classification of service should have been made in a different category by the provider of service.
CESTAT Delhi held that customs broker cannot allow its licence to be used by someone else impersonating it. Accordingly, revocation of customs licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty justified.
CESTAT Delhi held that when a government company is involved there will be a rebuttable presumption regarding nonexistence of any of the ingredients mentioned in the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Accordingly, extended period of limitation couldn’t be invoked.
CESTAT Delhi held that as electricity is not excisable goods under section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hence rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR) would not be applicable.
