Tribunal ruled that payments made for transfer of technology, technical documents, and manufacturing assistance under an inter-governmental agreement did not amount to Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service. It held that the arrangement related to technology transfer for aircraft production and not taxable consultancy.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that liquidated damages received for contractual delays cannot be treated as consideration for “tolerating an act” under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal set aside service tax demand and penalty imposed on such receipts.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that sugar syrup used in biscuit manufacturing could not be classified under tariff heading 17029090 since its fructose content was only 31%. The Tribunal set aside excise duty demands and penalties imposed on the manufacturer.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that seizure of foreign-marked gold without separately recorded reasons under Section 110 of the Customs Act was legally defective. The Tribunal ruled that subsequent confiscation and penalties could not survive.
The Hyderabad CESTAT held that amounts recovered from vendors for delayed performance of contracts cannot be treated as consideration for tolerating an act under Section 66E(e). The service tax demand on liquidated damages was set aside.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that waste mud generated during bleaching of crude palm oil cannot be treated as an excisable manufactured product. The Tribunal ruled that involuntary waste arising during refining does not attract Central Excise duty.
CESTAT Hyderabad ruled that pharmaceutical conversion work carried out under a job work agreement amounted to manufacture and not renting of immovable property. The Tribunal held that such activity falls outside service tax levy.
The Tribunal held that service tax cannot be demanded again under RCM if already paid by the service provider. However, the benefit applies only when full payment is conclusively proven.
The Tribunal rejected the refund claim after finding that export proceeds exceeded the declared FOB value. It held that such excess creates a presumption of duty being passed on, barring refund.
The Tribunal held that once an issue is decided up to the Supreme Court, it cannot be reopened. The Department was barred from challenging the same matter again.
