CESTAT Kolkata quashes Excise Duty demand on Super Smelters Limited for non-maintenance of separate accounts for input services used in exempted trading activities. Analysis and implications.
CESTAT Kolkata held that circular cannot impose new condition and restrict scope of the exemption notification. Accordingly, demand of customs duty based on condition imposed vide circular no. 24/98- Cus unjustified.
CESTAT Kolkata held that order of Commissioner (A) remanding the matter set aside as the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner has taken into account all such elements at the time of finalisation of provisional assessment.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the Hydraulic Study Department of Calcutta Port Trust were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 71/80-Cus dated 26.03.1981 and Notification No. 152/94-Cus dated 13.07.1994. Notification exempts goods which are imported by research institution from payment of customs duty.
A recent CESTAT Kolkata ruling clarifies that copyright services related to original artistic works are exempt from service tax under Section 65(zzzzt) of Finance Act.
A recent CESTAT Kolkata ruling on service tax liability clarifies that works contracts with material supply are not liable for service tax before June 1, 2007.”
CESTAT Kolkata held that the charges paid for services rendered by the FTOs (i.e. Foreign Telecommunication Operators) cannot be taxed under head ‘telecommunication services’. Accordingly, demand set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that confirmation of demand of duty unjustified if in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no actual loss has been caused to the revenue. Thus, duty demand set aside in absence of any loss of revenue.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the place of provision of the service of transportation of goods by air/sea from a place in India to a place outside India, will be a place outside the taxable territory. Thus, such service being within the purview of Export of Service Rules will be outside the service tax net.
CESTAT Kolkata held that composite contract involving transportation of goods and loading/unloading, packing/unpacking, etc. will be treated as a contract for transportation only as the other services are naturally bundled together with the principal service of transportation. Accordingly, service tax leviable under GTA service and not under cargo handling service.
