CESTAT Hyderabad set aside a reverse charge Service Tax demand, holding that accounting differences alone cannot establish taxability or justify extended limitation.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that integrated cargo movement involving loading, containers and coordination was Cargo Handling Service, not mere transportation.
CESTAT held composite works contracts were not liable to service tax before 1 June 2007, quashing the demand, interest, and penalties.
CESTAT remanded the excise case after holding that retrospective exemption under the Finance Act, 2015 required fresh adjudication of the duty demand.
CESTAT ruled that Section 51 of the SEZ Act supports refund when services are used for authorised operations despite documentation issues.
CESTAT held receipts were inclusive of service tax and directed recomputation after granting cum-tax benefit and considering TDS.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory post-import obligations under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. Following cancellation of the CDECs, the customs duty demand, confiscation and penalties were upheld.
The Tribunal observed that payment of licence fees for exclusive use of demarcated spaces amounted to renting of immovable property. Consequently, the transaction attracted forward charge provisions rather than reverse charge liability.
CESTAT held NHAI’s transfer of toll collection rights to contractors was a taxable service, not a sovereign function, and upheld service tax demand.
ESTAT held demurrage linked to transportation contracts is not consideration for services and cannot be taxed under Port Services or declared services.
