The Tribunal held that customs authorities cannot discard the declared export price without valid reasons or evidence. Transaction value supported by invoices and BRC must normally be accepted.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that expenses incurred for travel and stay of foreign specialists cannot be included in the taxable value since they were not charged by the service provider as consideration.
The tribunal held that installation and HVAC works involved supply of materials such as piping and wiring on which VAT was paid. Therefore, the contracts qualified as works contract service and not pure service.
The Tribunal ruled that statutory presumption of passing on duty must be rebutted with proper evidence. The refund claim must be reconsidered with supporting documents.
CESTAT Hyderabad set aside a service tax demand on rent-a-cab services provided to an SEZ unit after holding that the SEZ Act has overriding effect over the Finance Act notification. The Tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be denied based on the notification’s condition when Section 26 of the SEZ Act provides the benefit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee wrongly availed Cenvat credit on Bills of Entry already used by its manufacturing unit. The demand and penalty were upheld as the credit had no nexus with service activities.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 78 was not sustainable where Service Tax under RCM was paid prior to the show cause notice. The absence of deliberate intent and existence of reasonable cause justified waiver of penalty.
The Tribunal held that transport services cannot be taxed as GTA without proof of consignment notes. It ruled that, in the absence of statutory documents, the freight-related Service Tax demand was unsustainable.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that gold pendant are finished gold jewellery hence classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 7113 and not under CTH 7108. Accordingly, benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty admissible.
The Tribunal held that export duty must be based on the final invoice and BRC, rejecting reliance on CRCL moisture results. The case was remanded for fresh computation of refund and interest.
