CESTAT Mumbai allowed an SEZ service tax refund, holding Section 26 of the SEZ Act prevails and authorised operations cannot be denied on procedural grounds.
CESTAT Mumbai held that imported glucose monitoring devices are classifiable under CTH 9027 by following the Bombay High Courts ruling. The Revenues appeal was dismissed and the exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. was upheld.
CESTAT Mumbai held that liquidated damages recovered for delayed contractual performance are neither a taxable service nor consideration. The service tax demand, interest, and penalties were set aside.
CESTAT Remands CENVAT Credit Dispute Because Rule 6 Reversal Was Not Properly Examined
CESTAT held glucometers are classifiable under CTH 9027 as they perform chemical analysis of blood glucose and dismissed Revenue’s appeal.
Package tours commencing, operating and concluding entirely within the State of Jammu & Kashmir during the period October 2005 to September 2010 were outside the scope of levy under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the service tax demand confirmed for the normal period was set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 27A was payable because the refund of Extra Duty Deposit was not released within three months after the refund-determining orders. It ruled that delay in payment attracted statutory interest despite prolonged litigation.
The CESTAT Mumbai held that services relating to outbound tours conducted entirely outside India were not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. It concluded that journeys commencing and ending outside India fell outside the statutory charging provisions.
CESTAT held that the exporter established complete correlation between the exported, re-imported and re-exported frozen buffalo meat through documentary evidence and departmental supervision. It set aside the customs duty demand, redemption fine and penalties after finding compliance with Notification No. 158/95-Cus.
The Mumbai Bench of CESTAT held that proceedings arising from the same investigation and based on identical evidence could not be reopened after earlier orders had attained finality. The Tribunal upheld the order dropping the show cause notice.
