This yearly digest analyzes all the CESTAT stories published in the year 2023 at taxscan.in
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the goods can be confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act,1962 if it was prohibited under Customs Act or any other law.
A single-member bench comprising A.K Jyothishi (Technical) held that the goods imported by the assessee were included in the prohibited list and the goods were liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the penalty imposed for the import of car electronic goods on the ground of illegal undervaluation of imported goods.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and K.Anpazhakan (Technical) upheld the penalty imposed for being actively involved in the import of the impugned goods and undervalued the imported goods.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand of Customs Duty of approximately 2.5 crores for the clandestine removal of goods on the ground of the absence of corroborative evidence.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and K.Anpazhakan (Technical) quashed the demand of Customs Duty while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the discharge of service tax on output service of repair, maintenance of equipment and appliances by the service provider was eligible to avail CENVAT credit.
A single-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) quashed the demand for CENVAT credit and the penalty while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand of Customs Duty imposed for the import of car electronic goods on the ground of the absence of real importers.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and. K.Anpazhakan (Technical) quashed the demand of Customs Duty while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reduced the excessive penalty imposed for the confiscation of prohibited goods on the ground of consideration of Minimum Import Price.
A single-member bench comprising A.K Jyotishi (Technical) reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs) from Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs).
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in its recent ruling on the India Cement case, has held that no service tax is payable under the sale of space and time for advertisement on sponsorship of sports before 2010.
The two-member bench comprising Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member (Judicial) and Mr M Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) concluded that “sponsorship of a sports event, which has a commercial element (the IPL events) is disentitled to the benefits of immunity to service tax, notwithstanding the clear phraseology of section 105(65) (zzzn) of the Act; and since the sponsorship is about league matches conducted under the auspicious of BCCI/ IPL and payments were made to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)/ IPL, the sponsorship is not about sports events, but is sponsorship of BCCI / IPL.” Ms. Radhika Chandrasekar appeared for the appellant and Mr. R. Rajaraman appeared for the respondent.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand of the service tax Imposed on the weighment charges on the ground of non-falling of the service rendered by the assessee under the category of business auxiliary service. The Court granted relief to the Food Corporation of India (FCI) by quashing the demand for service tax.
The two-member bench comprising S.S. Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) quashed the demand for service tax along with penalty and interest while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmadabad bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the fees paid by Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (the appellant) to the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) can be considered as service under the Finance Act (mention the year) and was leviable by the CST of Ahmedabad.
The two-member bench consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial member) and CL Mahar (Technical member) stated that whether the activity was a service or otherwise depends on whether the USFDA should be treated as a Government in terms of ‘Negative List’ under Section 65B(37)of the Finance Act. Therefore, the amount paid is taxable. Accordingly, the bench did not find any infirmity in the impugned order in the appeal whereby the matter was remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order was upheld and the appeal was squashed
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ruled that there is no requirement that claims for refund should be filed within 3 months of Tribunal’s order for the refund of pre- deposit.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “We find that in various judgments it has been settled that as regard refund of pre-deposit, there is no requirement for filing a refund claim. The department must give the refund suo moto on the basis of Tribunal’s order therefore merely because the appellant have not filed the proper refund claim within 3 months of the Tribunal order, department cannot be absolved from the liability of interest on the refund of pre-deposit.” “There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that appellant is entitled for the interest from the 3 months of the order of the tribunal till the refund was granted” the Bench concluded.
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ruled that the payment of service tax gives the right to claim cenvat credit on input services.
A Two-Member Bench comprising SS Garg, Judicial Member and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that “The agreements entered with the broadcasting agencies were not on behalf of WWIL, but on its own behalf by the appellant. Further, perusal of the invoices issued by the broadcasting agencies to the appellant on which the appellant has paid the service tax gives him a right to claim the cenvat credit on input services.” The Tribunal also noted that the appellant has been filing the ST-returns with full disclosure of the cenvat credit amount availed on the services and the department was already aware of the fact about the availment of cenvat credit of tax paid on broadcasting services.
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re- adjudication to decide in the matter of condonation of delay as there was delay in filing appeal by 23 days as the Director of the company was abroad.
A Single Bench of Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member observed that “It is settled law for such technicalities right of appeal – to be heard by a Competent Appellate Authority, as statutorily provided should not be withered away. Commissioner (Appeals) in this case by not allowing the application for condonation of delay has denied the opportunity to the appellant to put his case on merits in appeal filed. There is enough reason to justify the delay of twenty three days ideally such delay should have been condoned and appeal heard on merits.”
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed penalty on the Director of the company on the ground that there was no suppression of facts as goods were cleared by appropriate invoice.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “We find that in the present case there is a procedural lapse on the part of the company the goods were cleared on payment of duty. The only lapse is that the appellant could not obtain the permission for the quantity cleared in DTA. There is no suppression of facts in the entire case as the goods were cleared by on the appropriate invoice and on payment of duty therefore even though if there is a short payment of duty for which the penalty cannot be imposed on the director of the company. For this reason, we are of the opinion that penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed to the director of the company is not sustainable.”
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), allowed refund against unsold goods as the import of timber logs made by the payment of due amount of customs duty and Special Additional Duty (SAD).
A Two-Member Bench comprising PA Augustian, Judicial Member and R Bhagya Devi, Technical Member observed that “We have gone through the facts and submissions made by both the sides. It is an admitted fact that import was made by the appellant by paying the due amount of customs duty and special additional duty. Refund application was submitted only after disposal of considerable part of the goods imported by the appellant with sufficient evidence regarding payment of local tax.” “Thus, appellant is entitled for the refund of Rs.1,04,111/- after deducting Rs.8,329/- against unsold goods with interest in accordance with law. Appeal is partially allowed” the Bench said.
The Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)has held that spent earth arising out of the processing of oil is not liable to excise duty.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) observed that “the removal of unwanted materials resulting in products like gums, waxes and fatty acid with odour cannot be called as a process of manufacture of these gums, waxes and fatty acid with odour. The process of manufacture is for refined rice bran oil. As such, we note that these Incidental products are nothing but waste arising during refining of rice bran oil and applying the ratio of Apex court, as discussed above, these cannot be considered as manufactured excisable goods.”
Further held that “the spent earth arising out of the processing of oil is not liable to duty in terms of Notification No. 89/95-C.E. dated 18-05-2019. Following the above decisions and the decision cited by the Learned Counsel, we are of the view that the demand is not sustainable.”
The Mumbai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)has held that revenue has no authority to collect service tax on services provided by sez developers to units in Special Economic Zone (SEZ).
A two-member bench comprising Dr Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) and Mr Anil G Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) observed that revenue could not place on record any conditions prescribed under sub- section (2) of Section 26 of the act. Further held that the Revenue does not have the authority of law to collect service tax on services provided by SEZ developers to units in SEZ and set aside the impugned order while allowing the appeal.
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that the Purposeful omission of Service Tax registration number makes invoices as inadmissible document.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) observed that “The genuineness of the invoices are doubtful since placing the Service Tax registration number is conspicuous by its absence that would put the invoices in the category of inadmissible document. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the findings of the Commissioner on this issue.”
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excised and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that cenvat credit is allowable on warranty services when included in assessable value of the final product.
A Two-Member Bench of the Tribunal comprising Dr Rachna Gupta, Judicial Member and Hemambika R Priya, Technical Member observed that “We conclude that the Cenvat credit was allowed for both the period prior to and post the amendment of 2011 on the ground that the warranty charges were included in the value of goods sold to the customers and Central Excise duty was paid on this value. It is thus clear that it is the consistent view that the services provided to fulfil warranty obligation would be eligible as input services being a service in relation to manufacture.” “Therefore, the Cenvat credit in relation to warranty services, value whereof is included in the assessable value of final product is available to the appellant as it contributes to the marketability of the product” the Tribunal concluded.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re- adjudication for confirming the demand of Customs duty for manufacturing dutiable goods on job work basis without disclosing verification report.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and C.L Mahar (Technical) quashed the demand of Customs duty and the matter was required to be remanded to the First Authority to consider the same in accordance with law and on merits.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
