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.
In a ruling in favour of Deloitte Haskins & Sells, the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Cenvat Credit on insurance for fire and special perils policy cannot be denied merely because of non-registration premises.
“With this circumstance, the Cenvat Credit of insurance would be admissible to the appellants. As far as the use of the said office by M/s C C Chokshi Chartered Accountant is concerned, revenue has failed to provide any proof to substantiate its claim.”, the two-member bench of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr Raju, Member (Technical) held.
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed the demand of service tax on ocean freight as no stay order was in operation.
A Single Member Bench of PK Choudhary, Judicial Member observed that “The Appellant has specifically pleaded in its reply to show cause notice and appeal memo submitted before the Appellate authority that the goods were imported under C.I.F contracts. This categorical pleading of the Appellant has not been disputed by the revenue in the adjudication order as well as the impugned order. This being the case, the present case is squarely covered by the dicta laid down in SAL Steel Ltd. and accordingly it is held that the Appellant is not liable to pay service tax on ocean freight.”
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) observed that the date of ‘let export order’ is the date for determining rate of customs duty.
A Two-Member Bench comprising PA Augustian, Judicial Member and R Bhagya Devi, Technical Member relied on the judgment of Commissioner of C. EX., CUS. & S.T., BBSR-I Versus Kashvi Power & Steel (P) Ltd, wherein it was observed that “In terms of clear legal provisions of Section 16 read with Sections 50 and 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, we find that the impugned order has been passed in line with the said legal provisions. We find no force in the present appeal by the Revenue to persuade as to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner ( Appeals ). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that the assessable value on goods transferred to any plant to be determined under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 where some goods sold to independent buyers.
A Two-member Bench comprising Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member and AK Jyotishi, Technical Member observed that “Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the issue herein is squarely covered by the ruling of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries ltd., which have been confirmed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cements Ltd.,. Accordingly, we allow the Appeals and set aside the Impugned Orders. All penalties also stand set aside. Appellant is entitled to consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with the law.”
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed the penalty imposed on acceptance of classification and prompt payment of customs duty along with penalty before the issuance of show cause notice ( SCN ).
Setting the imposition of penalty, a Two-Member Bench comprising PA Augustian, Judicial Member and R Bhagya Devi, Technical Member observed that “It is an admitted fact that the goods were correctly described in the relevant documents except for the classification being inadvertently mentioned as 9031 instead of 9016
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed service tax demand and held that the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas from various oil fields.
Quashing the service tax demand, the Bench further held that the amount of royalty to be paid though differs periodically, in our view the payment of royalty is a regulation of checking the over exploitation of the resources of our mother earth. Being dominantly in the nature of regulatory fee, royalty does not fit into the definition of consideration for services provided, as under the service tax law.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that ‘Huy glass 1105 M-Membrane Bags’ Filter Bags made of Fibre Glass are Classifiable under Filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for liquids.
A two-member bench of Mr P A Augustian, Member (Judicial) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member (Technical) observed that articles of glass fibres are excluded from Chapters 59 and 8421 specifically include air purifiers and therefore, the goods admittedly which are made of 100% glass fibres and which is meant for filtering the gaseous items are rightly classifiable under CTH 8421.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the Penalty imposed under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of evidence. It was viewed that there is no evidence adduced by the investigating agency to allege that the Appellant knew of the presence of Muriate of Potash in the above containers at the time of arranging transport.
A two-member bench comprising Mr. P. A. Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) viewed that in the absence of any admissible evidence, the penalty imposed on the Appellant is not sustainable.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that no service tax for the construction of slaughterhouses for the municipal corporations. The CESTAT observed that there are no records to show that the said slaughterhouse was for commerce and industry.
A two-member bench comprising P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) and Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) observed that the slaughterhouse was established for Kolkata Municipal Corporation in terms of Article 243W read with Schedule 12th of the Constitution of India. The CESTAT observed that there are no records to show that the said slaughterhouse was for commerce and industry. On the contrary in terms of Article 243W, this was the responsibility of the municipal corporation. That being so, the Appellant is entitled to benefit of Sr. No.12(a) of Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the demand for Undervaluation of goods merely of higher discount given on import is invalid and set aside the differential duty demand.
A two-member bench comprising Mr. P. A. Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that it is not unusual for a foreign supplier to give a higher discount to an importer who is importing a much larger quantity and merely because the supplier has given such a discount it cannot be said that there has been any undervaluation in the invoice. The Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the demand for service tax along with interest on ‘Consulting Engineer Service’ due to failure in payment of tax.
A two-member bench comprising Dr. D.M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member ( Technical ) upheld the impugned order to the extent of confirmation of demand of Rs.1,15,651/- with interest under ‘Consulting Engineer Service’ and modified by setting aside the demand of Rs.15,00,040/- confirmed against ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that Reimbursable expenses cannot be included in the taxable value. The two members held that confirmation of demand of service tax Rs.5,78,742/- on reimbursement of the cost of defective parts replaced during the warranty period cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal in the case of TAFE Access Limited Vs. CGST&CE held that reimbursable expenses cannot be included in the taxable value. Following the said judgment and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, Dr D.M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) held that confirmation of demand of service tax Rs.5,78,742/- on reimbursement of the cost of defective parts replaced during the warranty period cannot be sustained.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside Service Tax Demand on Work Contract Service for the period before 1.06.2007.
A two-member bench comprising Dr. D.M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) observed that Works Contract Service became taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007 as held in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and the said case, it has been held that before 01.06.2007, works contract service cannot be subjected to service tax levy by vivisecting the composite service contract, which includes both goods and service. The CESTAT set aside the demand of Rs.15,00,040/- confirmed against ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’ which is ‘Works Contract Service’. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that no service tax is leviable under management, maintenance or repair in the absence of receipt of consideration during the warranty period.
Dr D.M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member ( Technical ) held that “It is an incorrect approach of the adjudicating authority that the consideration be determined by resorting to valuation when no such consideration is received from the customers for providing services during the warranty period. It is not the case of the department that the Appellant though received the value of the services but the same could not be quantified or ascertained, hence resort to the method of valuation becomes necessary. It is a case of non-receipt of any consideration for the service rendered.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that cenvat credit cannot be denied stating service availed was beyond the place of removal. It was observed that the services related to effluent treatment are admissible input service and credit is admissible.
A two-member bench comprising of Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Raju, Member ( Technical ) observed that the revenue’s claim that since the service was availed beyond the place of removal, credit is not admissible completely fails and, on that ground, credit cannot be denied.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that the Licensee of a duty-free shop is liable to pay customs duty when it violates a provision of the Customs Act, 1962.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) held that the licensee of the Duty-Free Shop is liable to pay duty if the provisions of Sections and the Procedures laid down therein are violated and therefore, the question of passengers paying duty does not arise. The Tribunal upheld the duty along with interest.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that software licence and software are distinct things and benefit of Nill Customs Duty rate allowable.
A two-member bench comprising Mr. P. A. Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that documents such as manuals which are meant to be the instructions to activate the software are to be classified under Chapter 49. Therefore, the Commissioner was right in disregarding the fact that only because the value is high cannot be the criteria for classification of the product as software.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that appropriation of a refund claim against a disputed pending excise appeal is not valid without the final order.
A two-member bench comprising P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) held that appropriation of refund claims against disputed pending customs appeals is not sustainable in law as the demands in those cases have not reached finality. Therefore, the bench set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief if any.”
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that no penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 is imposable on the licensee of a duty-free shop in the absence of suppression of fact to evade tax.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that since there is no intention to evade payment of duty and the fact that the officers are also to verify the vouchers and countersign the sale vouchers, the fact of awareness by the officers cannot be ignored. The CESTAT set aside the penalty.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) directed the release of the Confiscated Goods Which were cleared as HMS Scrap without Proper Mutilation. The CESTAT directed the effective mutilation under the supervision of the Customs Authority.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P.A. Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R. Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) observed that the goods may be released to the appellants after effective mutilation under the Customs supervision ( as per the request of the appellant ), thereby rendering them as scrap. Scraps generated after mutilation will be cleared on payment of appropriate Customs duty as per the values declared by the appellant in the documents presented before the authorities.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that an extended period of limitation was not invokable in the absence of malafide intention to evade duty under the Excise Act, 1944.
It was found that the Appellant was under a bona fide belief that its activity was not liable to service tax further, the Appellant has maintained proper records of its activity and has compliances with various laws including the Income Tax Act, Companies Act, and had been filing ST-3 returns under service tax, filing refund claims on quarterly basis in respect of service tax paid on input services used in the services exported out of India. In the absence of mala fide intention, the two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) held that an extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and set aside the impugned order.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that service tax is not leviable on the services under the category of Online Database Access and Retrievable ( OIDAR ) services
two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) found that the Appellant has not maintained any website or electronic network to provide services that are essentially automated or involving minimal human intervention for the public in exchange for any consideration. The Appellant is providing digitized, abstracted and indexed data out of raw data received from third parties using the internet or electronic means of communication just to communicate resultant digitized or converted data, which are input services for their customers who may utilize the data for providing services under the category of OIDAR service ( main service ) by putting them on the internet for public/clients or their personal use.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) allowed the refund of Cenvat Credit to Samsung India Ltd. The appellants contested that in terms of Rule 4(7) of the Rules ( CCR 2004 ), a manufacturer or a service provider can avail the credit of input services after payment of the value of taxable service along with the service tax.
A two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) held that the entire amount that was debited by the appellant at the time of filing this refund claim should be allowed as cash refund to the appellant in terms of the above provisions of CGST Act, 2017.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT )rejected the question on the validity of notice issued under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the Kerala Minerals & Metals is a Registered Company under the Companies Act, 1956.
The two-member bench of Mr P A Augustian, Member ( Judicial ) and Mrs R Bhagya Devi, Member ( Technical ) rejected the question of considering as Government undertaking for issuance of notice. The appeal on the ground of limitation was rejected.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( CESTAT ) directed the revenue department to release seized imported garlic on furnishing bond and bank guarantee covering demand of differential duty.
A two-member bench comprising Mr S S Garg, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr P Anjani Kumar, Member ( Technical ) observed that the goods were perishable and it would not be anybody’s gain to keep the goods rotting under seizure. that prima facie, the evidence available to the Department is in the form of transcripts of messages the investigation is in progress and the Department is yet to negate the certificate issued by the authorities in Afghanistan. Understandably, the enquiry as per the procedure laid down under the Notification regarding the rules of origin is likely to take some time. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in releasing the goods provisionally as has been ordered by the competent authority. However, the only difference of opinion lies in the quantum of Bond and Bank Guarantee to be furnished for such release.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in a ruling in favour of Samsung India, has held that Cenvat Credit Cannot be denied during refund proceedings under rule 5 without initiating proceedings under rule 14 Cenvat Credit Rules ( CCR ), 2004
A two-member bench comprising Mr P K Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, Member ( Technical ) held that any amount which is not allowed as a refund under Rule 5, is to be credited back to the CENVAT account of the appellant.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) Non has held that non-furnishing of bond as per amendment of customs notification does not amount to misdeclaration and set aside the demand of interest and penalties.
A two-member Ms Sulekha Beevi C S, Member ( Judicial ) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member ( Technical ) observed that there are no grounds of fraud, misdeclaration or suppression of facts established against the appellant. The only allegation is that the appellant did not fulfil the condition as introduced in the amended notification and that this amounts to misdeclaration. Except that the bond was not furnished as per amendment notification 17/2009 there is no allegation indicating misdeclaration.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
