CESTAT Weekly Round-Up: 4 To 10 August 2024

ACD Refund Claim Can't Be Rejected For Non-Mentioning Of Period Particulars In CA Certificate: CESTATCase Title: M/s. Jumar Trade Links Versus Commissioner of Customs (Exports)The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Additional Duty of Customs (ADC) refund claim cannot be rejected for mere non-mentioning of period particulars in the CA certificate.Trading In Securities Is Not A Service, No Service Tax Payable: CESTATCase Title: M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central ExciseThe Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the no service tax payable on trading in securities is not a service.BOI Entitled Service Tax Refund Paid On Commission Charges For Credit Facility: CESTATCase Title: M/s. Bank of India Versus Commissioner of GST and Central ExciseThe Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Bank of India is eligible for refund of service tax paid on commission charges for granting credit facility subject to verification.Promotion And Marketing Services Not “Intermediary Services”, Australian Company Eligible For 'Export Of Services Benefits': CESTATCase Title: M/s Oceanic Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner or Central Excise And Service Tax, Chandigarh-IThe Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the promotion and marketing services provided by the Australian company to foreign educational universities and institutions do not fall under the category of “intermediary services,” and the assessee is eligible for the benefit of the export of services.CESTAT Quashes SCN Issued Against Fruit Seller Not Engaged In Any Service Tax Leviable ActivityCase Title: Surendra Gundu Shetty Versus Commissioner of Cen. Excise & ST, BelapurThe Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the show cause notice issued against fruit sellers who are not engaged in any service tax-leviable activity.Composite Contracts Can't Be Taxed Under “Erection, Commissioning And Installation Services”: CESTATCase Title: M/s Topaz Service Corporation Versus Commissioner of Central Goods Service TaxThe Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that composite contracts involving supply of both goods and services could not have been taxed under the category “Erection, Commissioning, and Installation Services.”

CESTAT Weekly Round-Up: 4 To 10 August 2024

Mariya Paliwala

Tags