This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) reported at taxscan.in, from February 19, 2024 to February 23, 2024.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has viewed that Web Cameras are not Digital Cameras and set aside the demand against Xiaomi Technology India Ltd.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) And Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that as per Chapter Note 5(C) and 5(D), the items are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8471 as long as they satisfy the conditions laid therein and there is no dispute that these conditions have not been satisfied, the item has been excluded from Chapter 8471 only on the ground that Chapter Note 5(D) excludes television camera, digital cameras and video camera recorders.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that charges paid for service rendered by FTOs cannot be taxed under head business auxiliary service and set aside the demand of service tax. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant made the payment of roaming charges to FTOs for providing connectivity services to their subscribers when they are abroad and the service is rightly classifiable under ‘Telecommunication Service’.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr R Muralidhar, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr K Anpazhakan Member ( Technical ) observed that the payment of roaming charges was made by the Appellant to FTOs for providing connectivity services to their subscribers when they are abroad. It was viewed that the services are appropriately classifiable as ‘Telecommunication Service’. During the relevant period, only telecommunication services provided by a ‘Telegraph Authority’ to a person were taxable
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the refund claim of import duties under Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962 thereby granting relief to M/s. Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd.
A Two-Judge Bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member and CS Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member observed that “On perusal of records and also considering the submissions made by both sides, we note that the main grievance put forward in the grounds of appeal filed by the department is that the respondent is not eligible for refund filed under section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962. It is to be noted that the department does not deny the claim of the respondent for eligibility of drawback.
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed service tax demand and noted that the Race Promotion Contract between Formula One World Championship and Jaypee Sports is not a franchise agreement.
A Two-Member Bench of PK Choudhary, Judicial Member and Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member observed that “franchise means an agreement by which the franchisee is granted representational right to sell or manufacture goods or to provide service or undertake any process identified with franchisor, whether or not a trade mark, service mark, trade name or logo or any such symbol, as the case may be, is involved. The sine-qua-non for Franchise Service is therefore grant of representational right to sell or manufacture goods, or to provide service or to undertake any process identified with the franchisor.”
A two member bench of Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Chennai has held that the allegation of bogus quantity against assessee is factually wrong. The bench held that the allegation that assessee has contravened the condition of the notification 6/2002 of Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 1.3.2002 in as much as their final products did not contain 25% of fly ash was factually wrong. The bench dismissed the impugned order initiated against the assessee.
The two member bench comprising Rudra Beewi C.S ( Member, Judicial ) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao ( Member, Technical ) held that “the appellant has been able to successfully establish that the alleged bogus quantity of fly ash was actually received in their factory and used in the manufacture of final product. In such circumstances, the allegation that appellant has contravened the condition of the notification 6/2002 dt. 1.3.2002 in as much as their final products did not contain 25% of fly ash is without any factual basis. The impugned order was set aside
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
