This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from June 11 to June 17, 2022.
Hakamichand D & Sons vs C.S.T.-Service Tax – Ahmedabad – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 322
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customer care service is classifiable under “Business Auxiliary Services” u/s 65(11) of Finance Act 1994.
M/s. Unimech Industries Private Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 325
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the value of scrap arising during the process of manufacture and retained by the job worker is includible in the value of the goods cleared by the job worker to the principal manufacturer for the purpose of levying excise duty.
M/s. MIRC Electronics Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Mumbai – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 327
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai bench has held that an improper procedure adopted by the manufacturer cannot be treated as illegal to deny a refund of the Excise Duty. Mere short payment of duty by the appellant is not sufficient in order to invoke the extended period
M/s. AP Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 326
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that activities of camp mobilisation and demobilisation, camp establishment etc., cannot be classified as ‘Survey and Exploration of Mineral’ and quashes Service Tax Demand. The Tribunal observed that the activity undertaken by the appellant is in the nature of mobilization of camps, upkeep and maintenance of camps and such other services that would not fall under the definition of Survey & Exploration of Mineral Services.
Kendrapara Credit Co Society Ltd vs Income Tax Officer – 2022 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 769
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi principal bench has held that explanation given on the ground of illness for the condonation on appeal will not sustain without any cogent evidence. It was observed that the cause/ reason for the delay was mentioned as a critical mental health problem of the appellant, for which the submissions were insufficient to be called “sufficient cause” for the Condonation of the impugned delay.
M/s Seher vs Commissioner of Service Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 328
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi bench has held that the nature of services is irrelevant for the taxation of reimbursements. While holding so, the CESTAT has quashed a service tax demand against the assessee, an event management company for the reimbursements made to its other service providers and sub-contractors.
M/s.E – Factor Adventure Tourism (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 329
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai bench has allowed customs exemption for the import of motorboats to be used for tourism purposes. The Department of Tourism, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam have certified that the boats are imported by the appellants for the purpose of creating excursions and itineraries in Vizag to facilitate development of promotion of tourism in adventure.
Aadhar Stumbh Township Pvt.Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 331
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai bench has held that limitation is not applicable to refund retained by the service tax department having the nature of revenue deposit. The refund application was filed within the limitation as prescribed under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act and the service tax deposited by the appellant has taken the changed character of revenue deposit, by operation of law as the Government of India extended exemption with retrospective effect vide notification no.9/2016-ST read with Section 102 introduced by Finance Act, 2016.
Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (India) Private Limited vs Commissioner of Central Tax – 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 330
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai bench has held that lack of segregation of credit taken on ‘input services’ will restrain the application of correct ratio as per CENVAT Credit Rules. It was observed that the total Cenvat credit for formula under Rule 6 (3A) is only total Cenvat credit of common input service and cannot include Cenvat credit on input service exclusively used for the manufacture of dutiable goods.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
