This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at Taxscan from 4 January 2025 to January 11 2025.
M/s. Koleshwari Infracons Private Limited vs Commissioner (Audit), Central G.S.T. & C.X CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 127
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed the demand order confirming that services like construction of roads, and bridges rendered to the Government can be exempted from Tax.
The tribunal also observed that the commissioner cannot reject a report submitted by the department without any valid reason. Therefore, the tribunal quashed the demand order.
The tribunal also remanded back to the commissioner for examination of the claim made by the appellant and directed to give proper opportunity to the appellant. Thus the appeal was allowed.
M/s. UMC Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 134
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) granted exemption from tax as the excess CENVAT credit was reversed before the show cause notice was issued to the appellant.
The tribunal held that the CENVAT credit has been reversed, so conditions for availing exemption are fulfilled. Therefore the tribunal granted the benefit of exemption to the appellant.
M/s. Samudera Shipping Line (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Port) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 135
In a recent ruling, the Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the penalty that was imposed on the appellant, M/s. Samudera Shipping Line (India) Pvt. Ltd, a shipping agent, under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no violation of export procedures.
The bench, comprising R. Muralidhar ( Judicial Member ) and K. Anpazhakan ( Technical Member ) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
M/s. Sai Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 136
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), upheld the confiscation of tyres without Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) markings under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The tribunal held that the goods (tyres) imported by the appellant without any BIS markings being in violation of the statutory provisions are not permissible to be imported, and hence they are liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act.
M/s SML ISUZU Ltd vs The Commissioner of Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 137
In a recent ruling, the Chandigarh bench of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the duty valuation made under Rule 10A and rejected the vehicle manufacturer’s appeal on refund claim.
The CESTAT held that the valuation of the goods in the impugned case is to be made in terms of Rule 10A of CEVR 2000 and upheld the impugned order.
M/s. Param Electronics vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 138
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi opted to remand a matter regarding undervaluation of Television Panels in the import Bill of Entry (BoE), calling for reverification of the matter in light of available contemporaneous import data.
Further noting that the Appellant had imported both ‘LG Brand’ panels as well as unbranded panels, the CESTAT Bench remanded the matter to the original authority to consider the contemporaneous import data adduced by the Appellant and to authenticate the relevance of the records and decide the matter in accordance with law.
Capital Housing Projects Pvt Ltd vs Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur – GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 139
In an important ruling, the Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that service tax exemption is unavailable to subcontractors for site formation activity for dam construction on the post-negative list regime. The bench found that appellants are neither eligible for exemption under S.No.12(d) nor under S.No.29(h) of the Notification 25/2012-ST dt.20.06.2012.
The bench held that appellants are neither eligible for exemption under S.No.12(d) nor under S.No.29(h) of the Notification 25/2012-ST dt.20.06.2012. In so far as the issue relating to limitation is concerned, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has sustained invocation of extended period. The reasons for sustaining the same has been elaborated in Para 54, 55 & 56 of the impugned order. The main ground considered by the Adjudicating Authority is that the appellants had consciously suppressed the fact of providing taxable services and their value and the same came to the knowledge only after the detailed investigation carried out by the officers of DGGI, VZU, Visakhapatnam.
M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 140
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside a demand of Rs. 6.12 crore for alleged irregularities in the distribution of CENVAT credit citing that the Input Service Distributor ( ISD ) had proportionately distributed the credit across its units as per statutory requirements and relied on Chartered Accountant’s certificate.
The tribunal observed that no evidence supported the claim of wrongful credit distribution after April 2012. The tribunal explained that extended demand periods require proof of intent to evade taxes which was not in this case. The tribunal set aside demand, and penalties and allowed the appeal.
The Commissioner vs Commissioner of GST & Service Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 141
In a recent ruling, the Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT) remanded the matter on the challenge on leviability of service tax on renting/leasing immovable properties for commercial purposes and directed to pass denovo order.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the file of original authority who shall adhere to the directions given by the High Court in the case of St. Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram Cantonment Board and then pass a de novo order.
Capital Housing Projects Pvt Ltd vs Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur – GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 142
In an important ruling, the Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) found that the appellants have only used lubricants, consumables, spares in relation to heavy machineries and explosives for blasting and held that mere use of lubricants and consumables in dam construction work cannot be considered as Work Contract Service (WCS).
The bench held that the activities being performed by the appellant cannot be considered as WCS as there is no evidence to suggest that appellants were discharging VAT on this contract by treating it as deemed sales. Thus, even their alternative claim for exemption under S.No.29(h) of the Notification 25/2012 would also not be admissible because the nature of the work itself being provided by them to their Contractor is not in the nature of WCS and therefore, it would not be covered within the ambit of the said notification.
M/s. Marikar Motors Ltd vs Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 143
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that warranty reimbursements received from vehicle manufacturers for free services rendered to car owners were not taxable under service tax provisions before the definition amendment in May 2008.
Referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd, the tribunal ruled that the service tax demand on warranty reimbursements was unsustainable for the period before the 2008 amendment and directed to drop the demand. The appeal was allowed.
SLP Contractors vs Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur – GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 144
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that they are providing ‘Mining Services’ and not ‘Business Support Services’ and there is sufficient ground for invoking the extended period for raising the demand. It was viewed that the agreement is not that of partnership and is in the nature of service agreement, where the appellants are service provider and are liable to pay Service Tax.
It was observed by the Tribunal that the agreement is not that of partnership and is in the nature of service agreement, where the appellants are service provider and are therefore, liable to pay Service Tax. The Tribunal held that they are providing ‘Mining Services’ and not ‘Business Support Services’ and there is sufficient ground for invoking the extended period for raising the demand.
M/s. Powergear Ltd. vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 145
In a recent case, the Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT ) remanded matter on denial of refund claim on service tax rendered for Special Exonomic Zone ( SEZ).The bench held that “ the issue regarding the denial of refund on payment of service tax beyond the relevant quarter is not there as decided in the impugned order and would hence be applicable to the earlier periods also and the matter hence stands remanded on the same terms in all such cases. “
Notification No. 12/2013-ST, allows the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to extend the time limit however no decision was rendered to their request for extension. When a discretionary power is conferred on an Authority, the power must be exercised in a reasonable, transparent and rational manner free from whims, vagaries and arbitrariness. It is a part of the Authority’s public duty to do so.
M/s S. I. Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 146
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has ruled that no penalty can be imposed for failing to file a NIL return.
Upon review, the tribunal bench of Judicial Member P K Choudhary concluded that the penalty imposed for failing to file a NIL return was unwarranted, as the appellant was not liable for service tax during the period in question.
M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 147
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that no service tax is applicable on discounts provided towards the sale of goods.
The tribunal held that no service tax can be imposed on such discounts, as they are directly related to the sale of goods and fall outside the scope of “services” under the Finance Act.
BONANZA ENTERPRISES VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 126
In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court pointed at the need for modernizing the methods of serving customs notices, communications, and orders. The decision came in response to a writ petition filed against the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and others, challenging the non-receipt of a show cause notice ( SCN ) and subsequent ex-parte proceedings.
The court ordered the Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to ensure compliance with the mandate of Section 153 of the Customs Act for serving notices via email and the common portal.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd VS Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 153
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that intermixed Special Kerosene Oil ( SKO ) cleared with the intent for public distribution through the Public Distribution System ( PDS ) remains exempt from central excise duty.
The tribunal confirmed that intermixed SKO retains its exempt status when intended for public distribution. The tribunal set aside the demand orders and allowed the assessee’s appeal.
M/s Anand Moters Agencies Ltd VS Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 150
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the demand of service tax on agency commission for promoting sale of vehicle. Agency Commission is amount paid by MUL for promoting the sales of vehicles when a new brand/ new version of vehicles is launched and are liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Services.
The Tribunal set aside the entire demand inclusive of the admitted demand which was not under challenge.A two member bench of P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) observed that the High Court has remanded the matter for reconsideration of the said demand. The do not dispute the said demand in this remand proceedings as the same was never under challenge even in the appeal filed by them. They have admitted this demand of Rs 42,799/- even at the time of adjudication.
M/s. Aurangabad Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 155
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that processes such as cutting, deburring, and broaching performed on raw materials like “Forged Blastings” which creates “Gear 4th Platina” qualify as “manufacture” under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The tribunal held that the processes performed by the appellant were incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product aligning with the statutory definition under Section 2(f). The tribunal set aside the service tax demand and ruled that the appellant’s activities constituted manufacturing which was exempt from service tax. The appeal was allowed.
M/s Emami Limited vs Commissioner of CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 151
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the activity of packaging bulk goods into retail packs constitutes “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The CESTAT, comprising Ashok Jindal ( Judicial Member ) and K. Anpazhakan ( Technical Member ) set aside the service tax demands and the penalties made and held that the activity of packing its bulk into retail packs amounts to manufacture, due to which no service tax is payable by the other appellants or the job workers.
M/s Chunar Cement Factory vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 152
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded the matter of cenvat Credit reversal on electricity wheeled out as there were no records about the correctness of this amount as it confirms the demand by application of 6% of the value of the electricity wheeled out.
While partly allowing appeal, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Authority in case the amount is within the amount already reversed, the proceedings should be closed without any final liabilities. Shri Atul Gupta appeared for the Appellant and Smt Chitra Srivastava authorised representative appeared for the Respondent.
M/s. Fritzmeier Motherson Cabin Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 148
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that manufacturers are entitled to claim CENVAT Credit on capital goods used in the production of exempt intermediate products when those products are ultimately used in the manufacture of dutiable final goods.
The tribunal ruled that the demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit was unsustainable and set aside the impugned order. The extended period of limitation and the imposition of penalties were also deemed unsustainable. The appellant’s appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.
Banaras Beads Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 157
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) remanded the matter for fair assessment because customs authorities failed to provide detailed contemporaneous import data while increasing the customs duty ( CD ) on glass beads imported by Banaras Beads Ltd.
The orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) were set aside and the tribunal remanded the matter to the original customs authority for re-assessment directing them to share the relied-upon bills of entry with Banaras Beads Ltd and provide the appellant an opportunity to present their issue. The appeal was allowed.
Creative Engineering Constructions vs Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam – I CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 160
The Hyderabad bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded a ₹3.32 Cr service tax case back to the adjudicating authority for recalculating the tax liability on the appellant after reviewing all documents.
The CESTAT remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority and directed that the validity of OCs be verified and that advances be received before their issuance. The tribunal also directed the authority to assess eligibility for abatements based on Value-Added Tax compliance and recalculate the service tax liability considering the payments already made.
M/s.Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Cargo) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 149
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd. was eligible for exemption from Basic Customs Duty ( BCD ) on imported “Digital Still Image Video Cameras” under Notification No. 25/2005, as amended.
The two-member bench comprising P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) reviewed the submissions and the precedent set by the Nikon India case. The bench found no ambiguity in the language of Notification No. 25/2005 (as amended) and observed that the appellant successfully proven compliance with the notification’s parameters.
Syx Automations India Private Limited vs C.S.T.-Service Tax – Ahmedabad CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 154
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has confirmed that registration under “Information Technology Software Service” is not a mandatory requirement for claiming a refund of CENVAT credit under Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) if exports made undisputedly.
The tribunal observed that procedural conditions in refund notifications should not override substantive rights granted by law. The tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for document verification and reprocessing the refund within two months. The appeal was allowed.
M/s. Sheetal Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 156
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the refund of Service Tax paid on input services during the pre-Goods and Services Tax (GST) era, for goods exported after the implementation of the GST regime.
The two member bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial member), referring the statutes and the orders, observed that “This being the command of law, his finding that received concurrence of the Commissioner (Appeals) that provision of existing law would mean CGST Act is erroneous and contrary to the provision of law and therefore, Claimant’s/Appellant’s filing of refund applications was made appropriately under the provisions of Finance Act read with Rule, 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, that can’t be said to be not maintainable.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
