This round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at Taxscan.in during November 11 to 17, 2023.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty imposed under sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act,1962 on illegal import of hoods on the grounds of absence of admissible evidence.
The Bench observed that in the case of Commissioner of Customs (ACC and Import), Mumbai V/s Gibson Guitar Corpn, the court held that there was no evidence to allege that the assessee was actively involved in the illegal import of goods by communicating with overseas agencies or by transferring any amount though illegal channel. A single-member bench comprising P A Augustian (Judicial) quashed the penalty imposed under sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act against the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-adjudication on excise duty demand on clearance of manufactured casting job work basis without analyzing Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption.
The Bench observed that as regards the goods which were other than job work and cleared by the assessee on their own without issuing invoices, there was a force in the argument of the assessee that after deducting the value of job work goods if the value remains within the threshold limit of the SSI exemption under Notification No 08/2003 then the same will not liable to duty and all these aspects are not verified by the department. The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-adjudication on the excise duty demand raised against the assessee.
In the case of Chettinad Cements, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CENVAT Credit of 2% CVD paid on imported steam coal can be avail under customs notification.
A two-member bench of Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) observed that “The bar to take cenvat credit is only when the benefit of exemption specified at Sl. No.67 and 128 under Notification No.12/2012-CE dt. 17.3.2012 is availed. The CCR 2004 does not impose any bar or restriction in availing credit when the benefit of exemption is availed under Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dt. 17.3.2012.” Further relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal viewed that Customs notification applies to the imported coal whereas the Excise Notification applies to the domestically manufactured goods. Condition No. 25 of Excise notification which denies availment of Cenvat credit on imports of coal manufactured by the supplier of coal, as has been taken the basis in the order-in-original, shall therefore be applicable for domestically manufactured goods only and not on the imported coal. The CESTAT set aside the demand and allowed the appeal.
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not leviable when service tax is paid by the principal and the question of who has paid is a procedural issue.
A two-member bench of Mr S S Garg, Member (Judicial) and Mr P Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical) observed that “the appellants have kept the Department informed of the fact that applicable service tax is being paid or has been paid by their principals i.e., M/s SETD. Therefore, there are cogent reasons for the appellant to believe that they are not obliged to pay service tax again; therefore, the ambiguity in the minds of the appellant is a bona fide one. Therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked.” Since no case has been made for the invocation of the extended period, the CESTAT allowed the appeal.
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) held that customs duty exemption is available on imported Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) as they do not support Long Term Evolution(LTE) standard…
While dismissing the appeal, the coram comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Mr Rajeev Tandon, Member (Technical) observed that “WAP imported by the appellant works on technology and does not support LTE standard. Ingram Micro was, therefore, justified in claiming exemption from the whole of the customs duty under Serial No. 13 (iv) of the notification. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Additional Director.”
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) held that statements collected without following rule 9D of the Cenvat Credit Rule (CCR) are irrelevant.
A two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Mr P V Subba Rao, Member ( Technical ) observed that in the absence of the circumstances specified in Section 9D(1), the statement cannot be true. Further held that “Examining the records of each of the individual companies/ firms and recording their statements can only reveal the complete truth. If such an investigation requires statements to be recorded and if revenue proposes to use such statements in the proceedings against the assessee the procedure prescribed under the section 9D has to be followed. Otherwise, such statements are not only NOT admissible but are not even relevant to the proceedings. In this case, all the statements are rendered irrelevant as the Adjudicating Authority had not followed the procedure prescribed under section 9D.”
As a relief to Adani Enterprises, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) set aside demand for an extended period under “Renting of Immovable Property”.
It was observed that the impugned order confirming the differential service tax demand in respect of “Management Consultancy Service” is not sustainable. A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar Member (Technical) observed that the ingredients for invoking demand for an extended period are not present in the present case. Accordingly, the demand raised on “Renting of Immovable Property” shall be restricted to the normal period only. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to Gillette India by quashing the rejection of a refund claim or approximately 1.4 crores on clearance of shaving razor on the ground of non-verification of cost accountant certificate.
The two-member bench comprising S S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that the revenue had not even considered the Cost Accountant certificate alone countering the same with valid reasons and the Cost Accountant had issued the certificate after going through the accounts of the assessee and after satisfying himself about the truthfulness of the same and quashed the rejection of refund claim while allowing the appeal.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) can be levied only on the inter-state supply of goods or services or both which is defined under section 5(1) of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act (IGST), 2017.
The Bench observed that as per Section 5(1) of the IGST Act levy of the integrated tax was on inter-state supply of goods or services or both. Thus, for the levy of integrated tax, there must be a ‘supply’ of goods or services or both. The two-member bench comprising Rachana Gupta (Judicial) and Hemambika Priya (Technical) held that the assessee was not liable to pay the demand raised by the department.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the CENVAT credit of excise duty is allowable on transformer oil which was used for the manufacture of the transformer.
The Bench observed that the transformer oil purchased by the assessee was used inside the factory in the process of manufacture and only for convenience had been transported in barrels along with the finished product and the transformer oil was not cleared ‘as such’. The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) quashed the reversal of CENVAT credit availed by the assessee.
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) upheld the Penalty under section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 as there was a huge difference in the actual value of identical goods imported and Chinese customs declaration value.
“Since there was a mis-declaration of the goods both in terms of value and quantity the confiscation under section 111(m) must be upheld. The redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed under section 125 on the goods valued at Rs.64, 86,108/- is very fair and reasonable and calls for no interference.”, the two-member bench of Dr Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) And Mr P V Subba Rao, Member (Technical) held. The Tribunal held that the appellant was liable to penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) has held that no service tax on lump sum fees and royalties is paid to the foreign service provider under intellectual property rights.
A two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical member) observed that fees and Royalties paid by the appellant are towards Intellectual Property Right which is owned by a company in Italy and the same is not registered under any law in India in terms of the definition of Intellectual Property Right is given in Section 65(55a) of Finance Act 1994. Since the Intellectual Property Right which is used by the appellant belongs to the overseas supplier and that Intellectual Property Right is not governed by any law in India, levy is not covered under the definition of Intellectual Property Right. Accordingly, the same is not taxable. Further held that the service of Intellectual Property Rights is not covered for levy under the definition of Intellectual Property Rights service given in the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the transactions of payment of Fees and Royalties are not taxable. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order confirming the demand of Service Tax with interest and Penalty and allowed the appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) held that the demand of Cenvat Credit on capital goods invoking an extended period was not valid in the absence of suppression of fact.
A two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical member) observed that the demand was wrongly made under the extended period in the show cause notice. Further held that “Since the demand even on limitation alone is not sustainable, the Revenue’s appeal has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Revenue’s appeal.”
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the assessable value of excise duty of final products leaving the factory of job workers would be the cost of raw material and processing charges on the manufacture of insulated copper conductors.
The two-member bench comprising D M Misra (Judicial) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical) quashed the excise duty demand against the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the service tax demand on the export of educational books and classified the service under the category of ‘clearing and Forwarding agent services’.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and C L Mahar (Technical) held that the assessee is liable to pay service tax under the taxable service ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the valuation of excise duty on the clearance of physical samples of medicines should be done under Rule 4 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules,2000.
The Bench observed that in the case of in the case of Amazon Drugs Pvt. Ltd, the court held that the valuation of the physician sample is under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. The two-member bench comprising D M Misra (Judicial) and Bhagya Devi (Technical) upheld the differential duty demand while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the rejection of recovery of availed CENVAT credit of excise duty on the waste and scrap of iron and steel on the ground of absence of corroborative evidence.
The Bench observed that in the case of Commissioner Versus Motabhai Iron Steel Industries, the court held that where there is tangible documentary evidence in favor of the assessee and even if there are overall statements of a third party contradicting the documentary evidence, such tangible documentary evidence must be given primacy over the overall statements. The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and C L Mahar (Technical) upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the service tax demand on excavation of lignite and overburden removal of materials and classified the service under the category of ‘Mining Service’.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and C L Mahar (Technical) held that as per the nature of the service in the present case, the removal of overburden which was exclusively meant for mining of lignite shall fall under the category of mining service and quashed the service tax demand while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that in the case of bulk liquid cargo, the quantity received in the shore tank be considered for determination of assessable value and not the value shown in the Bill of Entry.
The Bench observed that in the case of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. CC, the court held that the actual quantity received in the Shore Tank after import, be the basis for the determination of value as well as duty. The two-member bench comprising D M Misra (Judicial) and Bhagya Devi (Technical) quashed the Customs duty demand against the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-adjudication to the adjudicating authority for computation of excise duty demand of approximately 6.7 crores on clearance of sheet glass to Domestic Tariff Ares (DTA) on the ground of absence of document analysis.
The Bench observed that the matter needed to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority by providing the necessary documents whereby the correct quantification of duty, if any can be ascertained. The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-adjudication for re-computation of duty demand against the assessee.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the refund of duty paid under protest as there was an excise duty exemption claim for setting up water treatment plants.
A two-member bench comprising of Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) held that the rejection of the refund claims is not justified. The CESTAT set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal.
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) set aside the penalty in the absence of intention to evade tax as the service tax was paid by the assessee after availing abatement of 67 % along with interest.
A two-member bench of Mr S S Garg, Member (Judicial) And Mr P Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical) found that the substantial demand is barred by limitation because the department has not been able to establish that the appellant had intended to evade the payment of service tax which is essential ingredients to invoke the extended period of limitation. “Since the Audit, the appellant paid the service tax after availing the abatement of 67% alongwith interest and therefore, it can safely be said that there was no intention to evade the payment of service tax, the penalties under Section 77 and 78 are not liable to be imposed on them. “, the Tribunal held. The CESTAT allowed the appeal.
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) has held that service tax demand based on Form 26 AS from the Income Tax Department without Investigation is Invalid.
A two-member bench of Shri Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial) and Shri K Anpazhakan, Member(Technical) observed that the show cause notice has been issued to the appellant by invoking an extended period of limitation and some of the demand pertains to beyond five years and in this case, the demand has to be calculated in terms of Valuation Rules, 2006. The CESTAT held that an extended period of limitation is not invocable and demand based on Form-26AS is not sustainable.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) quashed the demand for Cenvat credit as reversal of CENVAT credit was not allowable since the Bagasse is non-manufactured final product.
A two-member bench of Mrs Sulekha Beevi C S, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) in light of the decision in the case of Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, set aside the demand and the impugned order.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the excise duty demand on the clearance of non-alloy bright bar on the ground of non-violation of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
The Bench observed that in the case of Sudershan Castings Pvt. Ltd, the court held that when the goods are sold to related persons as well as to independent buyers, in that case, Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules will not be applicable. The two-member bench comprising S S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) quashed the excise duty demand while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the kraft paper manufactured from the pulp stage is eligible for exemption from excise duty under exemption notification.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to conduct the detailed verification that the pulping machine was installed at the relevant point of time in the factory of the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to Intas Pharmaceuticals by quashing service tax demand on the transfer of patent and technology on the ground of non-inclusion of service category under ‘Intellectual Property Service’ (IPR).
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) held that the technology had been imported from abroad and no evidence of any protection under any law for the time being in force in India had been produced by Revenue and no demand can be made under the head of ‘Intellectual Property Service’.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the commercial training or coach services that were provided by the Institute of Clinical Research (ICR) are liable to service tax.
The Bench observed that under Section 65(27) of the Finance Act, the court held that service tax was leviable on the ‘commercial training or coach service ’ provided by the ICR. The two-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika Priya (Technical) upheld the service tax demand imposed against the assessee
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-adjudication to the adjudicating authority for confirming the recovery of CENVAT Credit of Excise duty related to the removal of epoxy molds.
The Bench observed that the removal of such moulds to ‘job-worker’ admittedly governed by rule 4(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules permits retention of credit for a time and reversal upon completion of the deadline till such time when the goods are not returned to the principal manufacturer. The two-member bench comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial) and. C J Mathew (Technical) remanded the matter back to the original authority for a fresh determination regarding the recovery of CENVAT credit.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the sanctioning of service tax refund claims on the issuance of invoices on the ground of non-violation of section 11B of the Central Excise Act,1944.
The Bench observed that the refund claim filed by the assessee was not hit by limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act as made applicable to the service tax by section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The two-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President) and Subba Rao (Technical) upheld the sanctioning of the refund claim filed by the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the excise duty demand imposed on the manufacture of auto parts on the grounds of limitation.
The two-member bench comprising S S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that invoking the extending period of limitation was not sustainable and the demand of interest by invoking the extended period of limitation was not justified and the demand was liable to be quashed.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the service tax demand under ‘franchise service’ on the manufacture and distribution of footwear on the grounds of limitation.
The two-member bench comprising S S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) quashed the service tax demand imposed against the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the excise duty demand on the manufacture of dyed yarn on the grounds of the absence of a real manufacturer.
The Bench observed that the assessee had no facility for dyeing yarn in their factory and the job worker was the manufacturer of dyed yarn and if any duty was to be paid it was to be paid by the job worker. The dyed yarn by the job worker was not captively manufactured by the assessee and in that circumstance, the Notification No. 67/95-CE had no relevance to the facts of the present case. The two-member bench comprising S S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) quashed the excise duty demand imposed against the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the excise duty demand on the clearance of the hemophilus vaccine on the grounds of the absence of a real manufacturer.
The two-member bench comprising S S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) quashed the excise duty demand imposed against the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the service tax demand under the category of transport of goods by road service on the grounds of limitation.
The two-member bench comprising S S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that the extended period cannot be invoked and quashed the service tax demand imposed against the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the outward transportation of final products up to the place of removal is eligible to avail the CENVAT credit of Excise Duty under rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004.
The two-member bench comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial) and C J Mathew (Technical) quashed the disallowance of CENVAT credit while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax on activity to military engineering services provided to government.
A two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical member) observed that the demand for service tax was dropped on the ground that the services were provided to the government. The CESTAT held that on the activity carried out by them, service tax was not payable on such activity since the services were provided to the central government for the discharge of sovereign function.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to Samsung Electronics by quashing the service tax demand under the head of expenditure of foreign currency on the grounds of the absence of service receiver.
The Bench observed that in the case of Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd, the court held that the assessee does not have any kind of interaction with foreign banks, and the service if any has been received it was by the Indian Bank and not by the assessee and no service tax can be charged from them under Section 66A of the Finance Act. The two-member bench comprising P K Choudhary (Judicial) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical) quashed the service tax demand imposed against the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax can be levied on tangible goods supplied along with operators on a monthly hire basis without transferring the right of possession and effective control then the same was covered under supply of tangible goods services as introduced with effect from the date of 16.05.2008 and not under business auxiliary service.
The two-member bench comprising S S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that the service rendered by the assessee does not fall under the category of rent-a-cab service and is not liable to pay the demand raised by the revenue.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the penalty under section 77(1)(c ) of the Finance Act,1994 based on the Form 26AS obtained from the Income Tax Department on the grounds of non-submission of invoices.
The Bench observed that the show cause notice was issued based on Form 26AS of the assessee obtained from the Income Tax department which shows how much was paid by various clients to the assessee and the assertion of the counsel that the penalty under this section cannot exceed Rs. 10,000/- was also not correct and the penalty cannot be less than Rs. 10,000/- but there was no upper limit. Thus the penalty imposed under section 77(1) (c) of the Finance Act was legally sustainable. The two-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President) and Subba Rao (Technical) upheld the penalty imposed under section 77(1)(c ) of the Finance Act against the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the excise duty cannot be levied on the sugar syrup which was not an intermediate product used for the manufacture of biscuits.
The two-member bench comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial) and C J Mathew (Technical) quashed the excise duty demand imposed on the sugar syrup produced by the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-adjudication on the denial of customs duty exemption on boron ore without analyzing the test report.
The Bench observed that the adjudicating authority had not properly considered various defense submissions made by the assessee and the judgments relied upon by the assessee and in the case of Kantilal Manilal & Co v CC, the court held that the naturally mined Boron Ore was eligible for exemption. The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-adjudicating the denial of exemption after analyzing the test reports.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the Customs duty demand on the manufacture of polyurethane polyvinyl chlorine soles of footwear on the ground of absence of Malafide Intention.
A single-member bench comprising Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical) quashed the customs duty demand imposed against the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to the TamilNadu Electricity Board by quashing the service tax demand on the Goods Transport Agent (GTA) services on the ground of limitation.
The Bench observed that the exemption under Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010 and Notification No. 11/2010-ST was an omnibus exemption as the Notification does not exempt any particular category of taxable service but exempts ‘all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity and distribution of electricity’. The two-member bench comprising P Dinesh (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) quashed the service tax demand while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
