This yearly digest analyzes all the CESTAT stories published in the year 2023 at taxscan.in
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
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.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the denial of benefit of the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013 of service tax on the ground of violation of section 106 of the Finance Act, 2013.
The Bench observed that the summon was issued to the assessee on 28.03.2012 much before the cut-off date of 01 March 2013 and subsequently a demand show cause notice was issued to the assessee in the same proceedings which was initiated by said summons. A single-member bench comprising Raju (Technical) held that the assesee was rightly held ineligible for the scheme and upheld the denial of the VCES scheme.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Customs House Agent (CHA) on the clearance of an imported vessel without any misclassification.
A single-member bench comprising C. L. Mahar (technical) held that since the cause of imposing the penalty against and the present assessee does not exist anymore, and we quashed the penalty imposed against the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the eligibility of CENVAT credit of Excise Duty of any service received shall be governed by law existing at the time of service receipt.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and C L Mahar (Technical) held that the eligibility of the credit to be considered as on the date of receipt of service but in the present case the Adjudicating Authority had not examined the actual date of receipt of service.
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the activities of a sub-contracting Customs House Agent (CHA) are not subject to the levy of service tax. The Ground on limitation is not applicable in the absence of suppression of fact by the assessee.
A two-member bench of Ms Sulekha Beevi C S Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) observed that the Service Tax on the amount received as a sub-contracting CHA was not paid by them as during the relevant time the Board had clarified that the activities of a sub-contracting CHA is not subject to levy of Service Tax. The bench held that there was no suppression of facts on the side of the appellant. The appellant succeeds on limitation also. While allowing appeal, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order.
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the TDS amount paid to the Income Tax Department by the appellant from his account cannot form part of the consideration of the service charges paid to the overseas service provider, accordingly, service tax is not payable on the Tax Deducted Source (TDS) amount paid by the appellant.
A two-member bench of Dr D M Misra, Member (Judicial) and Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) observed that “the TDS amount paid to the Income Tax department by the appellant from his account cannot form part of the consideration of the service charges paid to the overseas service provider, accordingly, service tax is not payable on the TDS amount paid by the appellant. Also, it is brought on record that after the payment of the TDS, realizing that being wrongly paid, a refund application was filed.” The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The Chennai Bench of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted relief to Sun Pharmaceuticals holding that the product “Danazol” is entitled to unconditional exemption from Excise Duty.
The Bench held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of unconditional exemption from tax as per Sl. No. 47A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the service tax demand on the manufacture of various types of brass articles on the ground of non-falling of service category into the supply agency service.
The Bench observed that in the case of Nishkarsh Industrial Services, the court held that the assessee had not provided the ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services’. Therefore, the demand made under the said category was not sustainable. The two-member bench comprising Somesh Arora (Judicial) and C L Mahar (Technical) quashed the service tax demand while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the excise duty demand on illicit manufacture and clearance of pan masala with tobacco on the grounds of the absence of real manufacture.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and C L Mahar (Technical) quashed the excise duty demand and penalty imposed against the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the CENVAT credit of excise duty is allowable on outward transportation and also eligible to take the suo motu re-credit.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and C L Mahar (Technical) upheld the decision of lower authorities to take suo moto re-credit of CENVAT credit which was reversed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to Tata Steel by quashing the customs duty demand of approximately 32 crores on the import of iron and steel under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme on the ground of non-examination of documentary evidence.
The Bench observed that the adjudicating authority had failed to appreciate this documentary evidence and had confirmed the demand by simply relying on the assumptions made during the issue of the show cause notice. The two-member bench comprising Muralidhar (Judicial) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical) quashed the Customs duty demand while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no customs duty interest was payable on the warehoused goods during the validity of the warehousing period under section 15 of the Customs Act,1962.
The two-member bench comprising S S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that no interest was payable on the warehouse goods for the period they remained in a custom-bonded warehouse.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) granted relief to Taneja Aerospace by quashing the excise duty demand on clearance of armour panels and stretcher assembly on the ground of limitation.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (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 CENVAT credit balance of excise duty will lapse only if the stock of input or input contained in the final products is exempted under section 5A of the Central Excise Act,1944.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) held that in the present case, notification No. 30/2004-CE contains a condition namely “provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to the goods in respect of which credit of duty on input had been taken under the provision of CCR.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
