CESTAT Mumbai upheld the quashing of customs duty liability on the import of a barge, Aqua Float 300′, citing irregular value addition of equipment on board. The appeal focused on whether equipment should be charged separately, but the tribunal rejected the claim.
CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax paid on services received from overseas service providers in foreign countries duly refundable as the same cannot be fastened with the liability of service tax as a ‘deemed service provider’ in India.
CESTAT Mumbai allowed the refund claim filed by Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporations (DICGC) by considering premium amount paid by bank as inclusive of tax.
Held that as a party to the joint-venture, obligations and responsibilities discharged by co-venturer cannot be brought under service tax levy. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside.
A comprehensive analysis of the case Bombay Fluid Systems Components Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, where CESTAT quashed the classification of stainless steel tube fittings under the Customs Tariff Act.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim under section 11B filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date is not maintainable. Here, relevant date was date on which appellant has voluntarily paid the short payment of service tax.
CESTAT Mumbai held that waste or rubbish, which is thrown up in the course of manufacture, cannot be said to be a produce of manufacture and cannot be said to be exigible to excise duty. Hence, sale of Ferric Oxide which emerged through chemical reaction of Waste Pickle Liquor is not liable to any duty.
CESTAT Mumbai in the matter of obsolete stock usage vis-à-vis reversal of CENVAT Credit or discharge of duty u/r 3(5B), it is held that mere Chartered Accountant’s certificate without documentary evidence is not sufficient. Matter remanded for the purpose of producing documentary evidence.
CESTAT Mumbai held that pressmud, bagasse, boiler ash and sludge, generated during the manufacturing of sugar/molasses, are waste or byproduct and therefore Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) shall have no application.
CESTAT Mumbai held that coaching in the field of sports has been specifically excluded from the applicability of service tax vide the definition of commercial training or coaching centre under section 65(27) of the Finance Act 1994
