This annual round-up analytically summarizes all the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Orders of the CESTAT Benches of India reported at Taxscan.in during 2024.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Kolkata Bench, ruled in favour of the Jharkhand State Cricket Association ( JSCA ) in a service tax dispute.
The tribunal concurred with JSCA’s argument that it was not involved in a franchise agreement per the Finance Act, 1994, as the association’s revenue related to cricket promotion and did not constitute franchise activities. The tribunal ruled that corporate and hospitality boxes leased during cricket events did not qualify as mandap keeper services, since they were not exclusively let out as traditional “mandaps.” Dismissing the tax on subsidies from BCCI for event management, the tribunal accepted JSCA’s position that these subsidies were not taxable as they were grants-in-aid rather than fees for services. The Future of Tax and Finance: Upskill with Us In its final order, CESTAT fully set aside the service tax demands confirmed by the Commissioner and upheld the dropped demands totaling ₹17.12 crore. Consequently, the appeal by JSCA was allowed, the revenue’s appeal was dismissed, and all associated penalties were annulled.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that transitional credit as a vested right cannot be denied based on procedural or technical grounds and approved an appellant’s claim for a service tax refund under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM).
The tribunal emphasized that this decision upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others vs. Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (34) GSTL J138 (S.C.)], supporting the principle that procedural errors or technicalities cannot override a taxpayer’s right to transitional credit if they are eligible. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the order to deny the refund and dismissed the penalty under Section 78 of the CGST Act. The appellant’s appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside extended service tax demand on bed roll supply to Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) due to lack of suppression of fact by the appellant.
The two-member bench comprising P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member ) observed that the service indeed fell under “business auxiliary service” making the appellant liable for service tax. However, the tribunal found no evidence of suppression or fraud that justified the extended limitation. The tribunal highlighted that the issue was raised from an interpretation of complex legal provisions rather than intentional evasion. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the service tax demand and penalty imposed for the extended period due to a lack of justifiable grounds. The tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudication authority to reassess the tax demand for the regular period only (up to one year before the show-cause notice issued on 04.01.2010) within three months.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Bangalore has remanded a case regarding CENVAT credit eligibility on construction-related input services claimed by Philips Carbon Black Ltd.
In result, the two-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh examination. The bench directed the authority to thoroughly review all relevant documents to determine whether the appellant’s civil construction work was completed before the amendment to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules on 01.04.2011. The adjudicating authority is instructed to address all issues raised, including those related to the Point of Taxation Rules while observing principles of natural justice. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Bangalore has directed a reassessment of a CENVAT credit refund claim filed by Goodrich Aerospace Service Private Limited.
The two-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) determined that a remand was necessary to allow a thorough examination of the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant. The bench noted that similar refund claims had been partially approved in prior and subsequent periods after departmental verification of the appellant’s records. Accordingly, CESTAT directed the adjudicating authority to reassess the case with a focus on verifying the non-overlapping claims between the two units.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)has held that no Customs Duty on Manufacturing of Stainless Steel Coils Under Advance Authorisation Scheme. The tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to refund the claim of CVD amounting to Rs. 16,31,373/- along with interest as prescribed by law.
A single bench of S S Garg observed that the Government of India vide Notification No. 1/2017-Customs dated 07.09.2017 imposed 18.95% CVD under Section 9 of Customs Tariff Act, but thereafter, trade associations made various representations and thereafter, the government vide Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017 exempted the CVD. DGFT also issued Notification No. 33/2015-2020 dated 13.10.2017 to exempt CVD under Advance Authorization Scheme. While allowing the appeal , the tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to refund the claim of CVD amounting to Rs. 16,31,373/- along with interest as prescribed by law.
In a recent case, the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) Cenvat Credit on refund to exporter of Cricket Match broadcasting service cannot be denied merely on procedural infraction.
It is settled law that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural infractions. We note that procedure has been prescribed to facilitate verification of substantive requirement. As long as a fundamental requirement is met, other procedural deviation can be condoned. The Tribunal held that there is no reason for denying the refund on minor procedural infractions and the appellant cannot be denied the refund of what is allowed to them statutorily, merely on the grounds that they have submitted a letter to the Department for not pressing the same. While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
In a significant case, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) of New Delhi bench held that service tax is not payable on ‘Construction Of Residential Complexes’. It was observed that since the appellant had rendered the service of construction of residential complexes as ‘works contracts’, the demand of service tax under section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Act towards ‘construction of residential complexes’ cannot be sustained.
While allowing the appeal, the two member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta, President and P. V. Subba Rao, Member ( Technical ) held that “Since the appellant had rendered the service of construction of residential complexes as ‘works contracts’, the demand of service tax under section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Act towards ‘construction of residential complexes’ cannot be sustained.” The Tribunal set aside the demand, interest and penalties on the appellant along with the impugned order.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Chennai has reduced the penalty imposed on M/s. Natesan Synchrocones Pvt. Ltd. for wrongful availing of Central Value Added Tax ( CENVAT ) credit. The decision was based on the finding that the appellant had reversed the incorrectly availed credit along with interest before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ), indicating no intention to evade duty.
In result, the single-member bench of Shri M. Ajit Kumar ( Technical Member ) reduced the penalty to that prescribed under Section 11A(6) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allows for a penalty calculated at 1% of the duty per month, subject to the condition that the duty was paid along with interest before the issue of the SCN. Transform Your GST Knowledge: Comprehensive Course – Enroll Now The ruling highlights the principle that penalties should be proportional to the violation, and in cases where no intent to evade tax is proved, the penalty should not be excessive. The appeal was thus partly allowed, with the appellant receiving a reduced penalty and consequential relief, if any, as per law.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) clarified that interest on the refund of pre-deposit for customs duty should be calculated from the date of the deposit, rather than the date an appeal is filed.
The two-member bench comprising P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial Member), and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) noted that funds held by the department are subject to interest regardless of when an appeal was filed. The tribunal referenced past rulings and explained that funds retained by the department for a period especially if later refunded, must include interest from the deposit date to ensure fairness. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) dismissed the department’s appeal stating that appeals filed by the revenue department are exempt from the monetary threshold limit only in cases involving constitutional validity or ultra vires issues.
The tribunal clarified that an interpretation of statutory provisions, such as interest calculation under Sections 35FF and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, does not equate to a constitutional validity challenge. The Tribunal noted that the revenue’s argument lacked a constitutional or ultra vires basis and thus could not be exempted from the monetary threshold limit. The Tribunal ruled that the appeal was not maintainable, as the revenue department’s arguments did not fall under the specified exceptions for exemption from the monetary limit. The revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) Chennai emphasized the limitations of using National Import Database (NIDB) data as the sole basis for rejecting declared import values.
In result, the two-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Mr. P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) found that the rejection of the declared transaction value by the customs authorities was legally unsound, as it did not meet the transparency and procedural fairness mandated by Rule 12(1). The bench set aside the order issued by the Commissioner of Customs and restored the declared value submitted by M/s. MBM (India) Pvt. Limited. The ruling stressed the importance of procedural compliance in customs valuation and the rights of importers to receive clear, evidence-based justifications for any valuation rejections. The CESTAT clarified that data sources like NIDB cannot override an importer’s declared value without due procedural justification.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Chennai, has allowed the set off of excess excise duty payments against any shortfalls within the same assessment period without attracting interest charges. The decision came in response to the appeal filed by M/s. Jonas Woodhead & Sons (India) Ltd. The CESTAT ruled in favour of the appellant by setting aside the revenue’s demand for interest on shortfall amounts, which had been covered by the appellant’s excess duty payments.
The bench cited Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which governs the adjustment of duty payments. The CESTAT held that the aggregate duty liability should be calculated based on the total clearances within a specified period. The bench also referenced the judgment by the Karnataka High Court in Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise to stress that any excess payment made by an assessee should logically offset shortfalls within the same assessment period. The ruling protects taxpayers from being penalised with interest charges on technical shortfalls. The CESTAT clarified that unless there is a net shortfall in duty payments after adjustments, interest cannot be levied, as this would contradict the principle underlying excise duty regulations.
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that Nokia India was exempted from paying service tax on its sponsorship of the Kolkata Knight Riders ( KKR ) citing Indian Premier League ( IPL ) qualifies as a sports event.
The two-member bench comprising Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya, (Technical Member) referenced the Hero Motocorp Limited case where sponsorship of sports events with commercial elements such as the IPL was deemed non-taxable under the “sponsorship of sports events” exclusionary clause. Raise Funds Smarter – Your Guide to SME IPO Success- Click here to enroll The tribunal highlighted that the Supreme Court upheld this interpretation supporting that IPL sponsorships are immune from service tax obligations. Thus, the tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s original decision to drop the demand, finding no merit in the Department’s appeal. The appeal by the Revenue Department was dismissed.
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that if a principal manufacturer fails to discharge the excise duty liability, the burden shifts to the job worker.
The two member bench comprising Binu Tamta ( Judicial Member ) and P.V.Subba Rao ( Technical Member ) upheld the lower authorities’ decision, confirming that the assessee was liable for the excise duty, along with applicable interest and penalties. The appeal was dismissed, solidifying the ruling that a job worker cannot claim exemption if the principal manufacturer does not meet the specific conditions required to transfer this benefit.
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing them to file a refund claim with their own jurisdictional Service Tax divisional office. The claim was based on a retrospective exemption enacted by Section 103 of the Finance Act, 1994, which removed the service tax levy.
In conclusion, the majority view held that the assessee was entitled to the refund, as they had filed the claim in their jurisdiction, and the impugned order was set aside. The assessee’s request was granted, as they had complied with the relevant conditions under Section 103 of the Finance Act, 1994, and no requirement existed to file the claim in the jurisdiction of the service provider.
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) granted relief to M/s. HDFC Ltd. by allowing Cenvat credit on the brokerage/commission paid for underwriting government securities to maintain the Statutory Liquidity Ratio ( SLR ) and Cash Reserve Ratio ( CRR ), citing the bank’s statutory obligations.
The two member bench comprising Ajay Sharma(Judicial Member) and Anil.G.Shakkarwar(Technical Member) ruled in favor of the assessee affirming that the Cenvat credit on the service tax paid for these brokerage services was indeed eligible. The Tribunal emphasized that these services were integral to the bank’s operations and their availability ensured the bank’s compliance with regulatory requirements. As a result, the assessee was entitled to claim Cenvat credit on the service tax paid for brokerage/commission fees related to SLR maintenance.
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) by allowing their refund claim for excess Service Tax paid under the reverse charge mechanism.
A single member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) upon reviewing the case, agreed with the assessee’s argument and found that they were entitled to a refund of the excess Service Tax paid. The authority noted that the correct rate of 10.3% (including cess) should have been applied at the time of payment, which occurred after 20th April 2009. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the original order and allowed the assessee’s refund claim, granting them the consequential relief. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the assessee was entitled to receive a refund of the excess Service Tax paid.
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad bench of Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that the transportation of minerals within the mines or outside the mines fall under the Goods Transportation Agency ( GTA ) for the service tax and not mining.
Moreover, the bench noted that the demand raised was based solely on data obtained from the Income Tax department, without any corroborating evidence to substantiate that the amounts received were related to taxable mining services. For this reason, the demand could not be sustained. This view was also supported by the tribunal’s decision in the case of Maa Kalika Transport Pvt. Ltd., where a similar demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds. Accordingly, the bench set aside the service tax demand, ruling that the appellant’s transportation services could not be classified under mining services and that the demand lacked sufficient evidence for support.
Moreover, the bench noted that the demand raised was based solely on data obtained from the Income Tax department, without any corroborating evidence to substantiate that the amounts received were related to taxable mining services. For this reason, the demand could not be sustained. This view was also supported by the tribunal’s decision in the case of Maa Kalika Transport Pvt. Ltd., where a similar demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds. Accordingly, the bench set aside the service tax demand, ruling that the appellant’s transportation services could not be classified under mining services and that the demand lacked sufficient evidence for support.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that penalty on co-noticee not sustainable on settlement of case of main noticee under Sabka Vishwas – (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS 2019).It was settled that once the duty demand case is settled under SVLDRS-2019,there is a waiver of penalties on the main assessee against whom the demand was confirmed as well as on other co-noticees.
The two member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that once the duty demand case is settled under SVLDRS 2019, as per Scheme itself, there is a waiver of penalties on the main assessee against whom the demand was confirmed as well as on other co-noticees. The tribunal held that the penalties imposed on the co-noticees in a case where the main noticee against whom the demand is confirmed, the case is settled under SVLDRS then in respect of other co-noticees penalty will not sustain even if they have not filed a declaration under SVLDRS-2019.
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that self-assessment by taxpayers cannot be treated as dilution of central excise officers’ statutory responsibility.
The two member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta, (President) and P. V. Subba Rao, (Technical Member) has observed that the assessee was required to file the ST 3 Returns which it did. Further held that unless the Central Excise officer calls for documents, etc., it is not required to provide them or disclose anything else. While upholding the commissioner’s order, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of department and held that the primary responsibility for ensuring that correct amount of service tax is paid rests on the officer even in a regime of self-assessment was clarified by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in its Manual for Scrutiny of Service Tax Returns
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that goods transportation upto customer’s premises as it is covered under ‘input service’ and cenvat credit is available on the same.
The two member bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the price charged to customers for goods on which central excise duty is paid is inclusive of freight. The bench found that the said order of the Tribunal was passed when the Circular dated 23.08.2007 was in vogue and the definition of input service‖ had been subsequently amended w.e.f. 1.3.2008. However, the final conclusion would remain the same in the present appeal in the light of the subsequent Circular No.1065/4/2018-CX dated 08.06.2018 and the interpretation placed by the decisions referred above.
In a recent case, the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the services of planning, scheduling, organising, or arranging tours, arrangements for accommodation, sightseeing, or other similar services as to operator service rendered by the appellant are chargeable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1944.
The Tribunal held that the services of planning, scheduling, organising, or arranging tours, arrangements for accommodation, sightseeing, or other similar services as to operator service rendered by the appellant are chargeable to service tax under the Act. The bench further held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on outbound tours service which they have not paid/short paid during the period, 2010-12, they are liable to pay interest in terms of section 75 of the Act.
The Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) Chandigarh bench held that interest was not allowable when customs refund was granted within 3 months from date of final assessment under Customs Act, 1962.
A single bench of Mr. S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial) found that the appellant is entitled to interest if the refund is payable after the expiry of 3 months from the date of final assessment as per Section 18 (4) of the Customs Act whereas in the present case the refund was granted within 3 months as prescribed under Section 18 (4) of the Act. Therefore, the bench held that the appellant is not entitled to any interest in view of the statutory provisions. It was viewed that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and uphold the same by dismissing the appeal of the appellant-assessee.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that liquidated damages/penal interest charges are not exigible to service tax merely because such charges are not relatable to taxable service.
A two member bench of Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) P.V. Subba Rao, Member ( Technical ) held that the liquidated damages/penal interest charged by the appellant are not exigible to service tax as per the provisions of the Act for the simple reason that such charges are not relatable to taxable service being rendered by the appellant. It has also been settled that such liquidated damages/penal interest do not form part of the “declared service” as given under section 66(E) of the Act, as the activity contemplated under section 66E(e), i.e. when one party obligates to refrain from an act or to tolerate such an act or situation or to do an act or the activities when an agreement refers to such an agreement and there is flow of consideration for this activity, which in the present case, we do not find so. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
In a recent case, the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that service tax is not leviable on account of incentives received from Computer Reservation System ( CRS ) Companies.
The two member bench of Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) Hemambika R. Priya, Member ( Technical ) held that principle of law settled by the Larger Bench squarely applies to the facts of the present case and hence no service tax can be levied on the appellant on account of incentives received from the CRS companies. In view of our discussion above, the court held that no service tax is leviable on the CRS incentives received by the appellant.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Allahabad set aside a smuggling conviction, stating that a retracted confession alone is insufficient to prove guilt in such cases. The judgment came after the accused, who had initially confessed to the crime, later retracted the statement claiming it was made under duress and pressure from the customs officials.
The two-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Mr. P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) concluded that customs authorities must gather solid, corroborative evidence to substantiate claims of smuggling. Mere reliance on a retracted confession cannot be the foundation of a conviction In the confessions, particularly in sensitive cases such as smuggling, human rights violations and undue pressure can distort justice. It calls for more rigorous standards of proof in such high-stakes cases.
In a decision that strengthens the rights of taxpayers transitioning into the GST regime, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Chennai, has ruled in favor of Madura Micro Finance Ltd., allowing a refund of service tax paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism ( RCM ).
The single-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Shri M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) held that the tax paid qualifies as refundable under Section 142 of the CGST Act, despite procedural rejections, as transitional credits cannot be denied on technical grounds. The bench concluded that the denial of credit based on procedural grounds was “hyper-technical”, asserting that the appellant is entitled to transitional credit and, in cases where credit cannot be carried forward, a refund. Consequently, the CESTAT directed the Department to process the refund for Madura Micro Finance Ltd. The judgment highlighted the rights of taxpayers to claim transitional credits despite procedural hurdles, ensuring that eligible taxpayers are not unfairly burdened by procedural rejections.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has clarified that quotations or proforma invoices cannot serve as a basis to enhance the declared value of imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
In result, the two-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Shri P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Shri M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) set aside the impugned order to enhance the declared value, concluding that relying on quotations violated the Customs Valuation Rules.The ruling stressed the importance of using proper, legally grounded methods when determining transaction values in customs assessments. The bench emphasized that customs authorities must follow established valuation rules, relying only on concrete transaction evidence rather than non-binding documents. It was concluded that valuation adjustments by the customs department cannot be based on documents like quotations or proforma invoices, which are merely offers and not finalized agreements.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Chennai has held that a minor procedural error in a Country of Origin (COO) certificate should not prevent the appellant from availing tariff benefits under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The bench applied the doctrine of substantial compliance, emphasizing the need for justice over rigid procedural formalities.
In light of the above reasoning, the two-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Shri P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Shri M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) overturned the decision of the lower authorities, ruling in favor of the appellant. The bench allowed the appeal, granting the 3% concessional tariff benefit and highlighting the need to prioritize substantial compliance with procedural requirements, rather than disqualifying genuine claims over technicalities. Get a Copy of Boost Your Earning Potential: Upskill in Tax and Finance, Click here The decision stressed that procedural shortcomings do not result in unfair denial of entitled benefits, particularly in trade matters governed by international agreements such as the ASEAN-India FTA.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (CESTAT) recently absolved Hyundai Motors from the imposition of penalty or redemption fine in llight of being satisfied that there had been no wilful suppression of facts or production of mis-statement by Hyundai.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai held that in the event assessment itself has not been completed and the classification of goods have been finalized prematurely, the question of confiscation of goods or imposition of fine or penalty thereof does not even arise. In light of the observations, the Bench affirmed that Hyundai had at no point during the matters leading up to the case been found to be indulged in blameworthy behavior, hence, “The appeal filed by revenue pertaining to the confiscation of goods provisionally assessed under a bond and confiscation / imposition of redemption fine on the goods and a penalty on the assessee, fails”.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that a mere discrepancy between the trial balance and ST-3 Returns, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to justify a service tax demand.
The CESTAT bench observed that it cannot be held that taxable services had been provided by the appellant merely by looking at the difference in figures appearing in the trial balance as compared to the ST-3 Returns without any corroborative evidence Get a Copy of GPT-Powered Filing – Streamline Your Faceless Appeal Process – Enroll Now, Click here The CESTAT bench, comprising Mr. Binu Tamta ( Judicial Member ) and Mr. P V Subba Rao ( Technical Member ) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant was represented by Mr. Rajeev Agarwal and the respondent by Mr.Rajeev Kapoor.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the 2% penal interest charged over the applicable interest rate was not subject to service tax under Section 66 E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The CESTAT bench, by referring to various judgments, held that no service tax can be levied on the liquidated damages/penal interest charged by the respondent. This is because the liquidated damages/penal interest charged by the appellant at 2% cannot be construed as additional consideration as it is a penal interest on account of delayed payment of loans. The CESTAT bench, comprising Mr. Binu Tamta ( Judicial Member ) and Mr. P V Subba Rao ( Technical Member ) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The appellant was represented by Mr. Manoj Kumar, Authorized Representative for Revenue and the respondent by Atul Gupta, Chartered Accountant.
In a recent ruling, the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that tour planning and accommodation services rendered by operators are subject to service tax.
The CESTAT bench comprising Binnu Tamta ( Judicial Member ) and Hemambika R. Priya ( Technical Member ) held that the services of planning, scheduling, organizing, or arranging tours, arrangements for accommodation, sightseeing, or other similar services as to operator service rendered by the appellant are chargeable to service tax under the Act. The bench also held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on outbound tours, which they had not paid during the period 2010–12, and was liable to pay interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) granted excise duty exemption to the assessee for goods cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area ( DTA ), citing proper record maintenance and the non-applicability of Special Additional Duty ( SAD ).
The two member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) set aside the impugned order, allowing the assessee’s appeal, and granted consequential relief in accordance with the law. The tribunal found that the assessee had met all the necessary conditions for exemption and had acted in good faith without any intent to evade duty.
In a recent case, the Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that service tax cannot be demanded on sale of goods where Value Added Tax ( VAT ) already paid.
Regarding demand against upgradation of software, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of CST vs. M/s Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, once lumpsum has been charged for the sale of CD as involved in present appeal and sale tax has been paid thereon, Revenue thereafter cannot levy service tax on the entire sale consideration once again on the ground that updates are being provided. It was observed that once Appellant had paid VAT on the sale of goods, service tax cannot be demanded on such sale of goods. The bench set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
In a recent case, the Chennai bench of the Customs , Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that non-submission of inventory on denim fabrics is not a ground to disallow DBK claim. The Tribunal upheld the direction to brand rates fixation of duty drawback under Customs Act, 1962.
It was observed that there has to be a methodology to be adopted, it could be SION norms or any other input output norms as available in textile parlance. SION being an established norms prescribed even by DGFT for the purpose of export – import commerce which is recognized in law, there is no infirmity in applying the same norms in the case on hand. The two member bench of P Dinesha , Judicial Member and Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member found that there has been no effort at all made by the Revenue to negate the above findings of the Appellate Authority in any manner. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the service tax demand by the Commissioner because the Commissioner failed to establish a “reason to believe” that the declaration filed by the appellant was “substantially false,” as mandated under Section 101 of the Finance Act, 2013.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and C. L. Mahar (Technical Member) reviewed the records provided by the appellant supporting the argument that the services were primarily for educational institutions and residential houses, which qualify for abatements/exemptions. The tribunal observed that the Commissioner failed to establish a valid reason to believe that the declaration was “substantially false” as required by Section 101 of the Finance Act, 2013, and the Commissioner did not sufficiently address or query the appellant’s reconciliation and supporting documents. So, the tribunal set aside the commissioner’s order. The appellant’s appeal was allowed granting consequential relief.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that ‘when the department has collected excise duty on finished products, the credit availed on the inputs cannot be denied, even without manufacture’.
The bench did not find any merit in the impugned order as the department had collected duty on the finished products and thus held that the credit availed on the inputs cannot be denied, alleging that the activity does not amount to manufacture. The CESTAT, consisting of Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao ( Technical Memebr ) and Mr. P. Dinesha ( Judicial Member ) ordered to set aside the impugned order.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
