SERVICE TAX SECTION
2009-TIOL-1093-CESTAT-BANG.pdf
M/s Silver Lake Information Systems Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Bangalore (Dated: March 17, 2009)
Service Tax – Training on software related to AS/400 mainframes rendered to clients – Service tax amount demanded already discharged, balance amount waived and stay granted:BANGALORE CESTAT;
2009-TIOL-1092-CESTAT-DEL.pdf
M/s Auto World Vs CCE, Allahabad (Dated: April 17, 2009)
Service tax - Business Auxiliary Service - Assessee is an authorised auto dealer - arranges auto loans for customers from financial institutions and earns commission - fails to pay tax on commission income due to confusion - after Board clarifies assessee voluntarily deposits tax partly - Revenue raises demand and imposes penalty - held, since there was initially confusion about the levy of service tax on commission income, no mala fide can be alleged and since the balance tax was also deposited before the adjudication order, it is a fit case for invocation of Sec 80 - Assessee's appeal allowed :DELHI CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1091-CESTAT-KOL.pdf
M/s Arti & Sons Vs CST, Kolkata (Dated: March 16, 2009)
ST - Business Auxuliary Service - Assessee is into promotion and marketing of lottery tickets - Demand and peanlty - extended period also invoked - Assessee argues it is covered under service tax net only after Explanation to Sec 65(19) w.e.f 16.5.2008 was inserted - held, since the Explanation is only clarificatory in nature, it is not a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit - 25% pre-deposit ordered :KOLKATA CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2009-TIOL-1096-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + sez story.pdf
M/s Sujana Metal Products Ltd Vs CC & CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: May 1, 2009) Central Excise – Supplies to SEZ Developer – amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules retrospective – Stay granted: the SEZ Act, 2005 provides for the exemption of supplies made to a developer. Moreover, the amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should be taken to be clarificatory in nature as the word “substituted” has been used. :BANGALORE CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1095-CESTAT-AHM.pdf
M/s Sarla Polyester Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Vapi (Dated: May 29, 2009)
Central Excise – Polyester covered yarn and Nylon covered yarn manufactured by applying the process of conventional covering classifiable under Chapter 5402.62 and 5402.61 – When facts are known to the department extended period cannot be invoked – Manner of computation of duty remanded to Commissioner for reconsideration :AHMEDABAD CESTAT; 2009-TIOL-1094-CESTAT-DEL.pdf
M/s Dabur India Ltd Vs CCE, Ghaziabad (Dated: March 17, 2009)
Central Excise – When respondent has no objection, rectification application allowed with requisite directions to modify earlier order :DELHI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION
2009-TIOL-1097-CESTAT-KOL.pdf + cus story.pdf
M/s Bengal Trade Links Vs CC (Port), Kolkata (Dated: April 17, 2009) Import of Obscene goods – Who decides obscenity ? Expert's opinion not applicable to Customs Act; the import of obscene and objectionable articles are prohibited under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Notification No.1-Cus . dated 18.01.1964 issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 which prohibits import of any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation, figure or article. The offending goods are obscene and objectionable as the same are for Group Sex. :KOLKATA CESTAT;
|