This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at taxscan. in, from July 15 to July 21, 2023.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the refund claim of approximately rupees 158 crore to Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporations.
The two-member bench comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial) and C.J. Mathew (Technical) allowed the refund claim of approximately Rs.158 crores filed by the assessee and upheld the decision made by the first appellate tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty imposed for violation of provisions of Customs Broker License Regulations, 2018 on grounds of non-revocation of license.
A single-member bench comprising Anjani Kumar (Technical) quashed the penalty imposed by the Commissioner while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the refund claim of custom duty filed under section 27 of the Customs Act,1962 on the ground of delay in filing due to covid-19 pandemic.
A Single-member bench comprising Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that the claim of refund of customs duty was not barred by limitation and directed to allow the refund claim while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no requirement for the actual use of inputs and quantities of imported goods for claiming Duty-Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) benefit.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and Mahar (Technical) quashed the order of rejection of the claim and held that the assessee was entitled to claim DFIA benefit while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that when any demand of service tax confirmed under the category of commercial construction cannot be de again demanded under ‘works contract services’.
The two-member bench comprising S.S. Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that the service by the assessee was not chargeable to service tax; limitation and imposition of penalties are not relevant and quashed while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter of different classification for the same goods declared as flexible intermediate bulk containers for central excise purposes under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The two-member bench comprising Somesh Arora (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) held that the matter was not decided as per the law and remanded back for reconsideration of classification of goods to the adjudicating authority
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the imposition of redemption fine on seized goods on the ground of nondisclosure of original invoices.
A single-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial) upheld the decision made by the lower authorities while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no appeal can be filed against the order of CESTAT which was withdrawn on monetary grounds
A single-member bench comprising Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that the Commissioner as regards the applicability of the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act to the facts of the case are incorrect and as a result of incoherent reading of the provisions of the statute and quashed the order while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the rejection of a refund claim filed under section 27 of the Customs Act,1962 on the ground of Inclusion of correctly paid duty in an assessable value.
The two-member bench comprising S.S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) held that the assessee was not eligible for the refund claim as per the law and upheld the decision of the first appellate authority while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the rejection of the refund application of service tax filed by the assessee on the ground of barred by limitation.
The two-member bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical) upheld the order passed by the Commissioner while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty for imposing under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation of seized gold bars on the ground of mere presumption of smuggling.
The two-member bench comprising Jindal (Judicial) and K.Anpazhakan (Technical) held that the penalty imposed was not as per the law and liable to be deleted while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the order of classification of line extender under the category of broadcast signal amplifier on the ground of wrong classification.
The bench observed that the ‘Line Extender’ cannot function in isolation but as a part of the digital line system. Hence, the classification under Chapter Heading 8543 was wrong and it was rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8517 as claimed by the assessee. The two-member bench comprising P. A Augustian (Judicial) and R.Bagya Devi (Technical) quashed the classification made by the lower authorities while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the classification of stainless steel tube fittings as the chapter heading of the first schedule under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the ground of incorrect classification.
The two-member bench comprising S.K Mohanty (Judicial) and C.J. Mathew (Technical) quashed the classification made by the lower authorities while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground of genuine disclosure of relevant documents filed by the assessee for the sanction of refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD).
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) held that the appeal filed by the revenue does not contain any merit and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the value of free samples should be determined under rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules,2000.
The two-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President) and R.Bagya Devi (Technical) upheld the decision of the imposition of penalty while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the revocation of suspension of the Custom House Agents (CHA) license on the ground of the absence of conclusive evidence.
The two-member bench comprising P. A Augustian (Judicial) and R.Bhagya Devi (Technical) held that the submission made by the revenue about the renewal of license was valid and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed as infructuous.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no service tax is leviable under the category of renting of immovable property when the amount received like sharing of profit.
The two-member bench comprising P. Dinesha (Judicial) and M.Ajith Kumar (Technical) quashed the demand for service tax imposed by the department while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner for denying the CENVAT credit on duty shown in invoices on the ground of nondisclosure of genuine invoices.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and K.Anbazhakan (Technical) held that the CENCAT credit cannot be denied and quashed the order of denial of credit while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962.
The two-member bench comprising P. Dinesh (Judicial) and Vasa Sheshagiri Rao (Technical) upheld the deletion of the imposition of penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty imposed on wilful suppression with intent to evade excise duty on the ground of absence of conclusive evidence.
The two-member bench comprising M. Mishra (Judicial) and R.Bhagya Devi (Technical) held to remand back the matter to the original authorities for re-quantification of the demands for the normal period
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the order of demand of service tax on the ground of earlier settlements of the same issue.
The bench observed that the very same issue had been settled in favor of the assessee in its case in Service Tax Appeal and the demand raised by the revenue was liable to be deleted. The two-member bench comprising P.Dinesha (Judicial) and Ajith Kumar (Technical) quashed the order passed by the department while also the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed the adjudicating authority to allow the conversion of Duty-Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) shipping bills into Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) scheme on the ground of non-consideration of the relevant provision of law. The two-member bench comprising Somesh Arora (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) held to remand the matter back to the original authority to implement the same by allowing amendment as per law.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty imposed under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on seized goods without recording the statement of the assessee.
A single-member bench comprising Somesh Arora (Judicial) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have sustained personal penalty on the assessee under section 112 (b) or 112 (a) of the Customs Act while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has held that the goods cleared to sister units of the assessee shall be valued based on the Comparable Contract Price since the Amendment to Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 shall be applicable only after December 1st, 2013.
The bench also held that since the assessee had sales to non-related buyers, they are not liable to adopt the value of comparable goods cleared by them as the amendment to Rule 8 makes it applicable from December 1, 2013. In result, the CESTAT sets aside the order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is leviable when goods are misdeclared.
A single-member bench comprising Mr Somesh Arora, Member (Judicial) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in 1993 (67) held that the goods are misdeclared, Section 112 gets attracted. This is especially so when violations are accepted by the concerned party. “Accordingly, the penalty under Section112 (a) is sustainable, however, the same is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh only), as the Apex Court has also held that only the quantum of penalty remains justiciable. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 112(a) is sustained but stands reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-, similarly, the redemption fine of Rs. 35,000/- each on five truck clearing, carrying goods when intercepted is also reduced to Rs. 10,000/- each from Rs. 35,000/-, as the truck was not offending goods, per se.”, the CESTAT held.
The Delhi bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that buying and selling space on ships does not amounts to service, service tax not leviable on such markup.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Ms. Hemambika R Priya, Member (Technical) set aside the demand of service tax on mark up on ocean freight, container detention charges and toll taxes. Further set aside the plea of the appellant that service tax to the extent not disputed and paid with interest and covered by section 73(3) of the Finance Act is accepted and the demand raised in the show cause notice to that extent.
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no service tax is leviable under the obligations and responsibilities discharged by the co-venturer in a joint venture.
The two-member panel comprising S.K Mohanty (Judicial) and M.M S.K Parthiban (Technical) quashed the penalty imposed for the non-payment of service tax by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Samsung Galaxy tabs are classifiable as tablet computers or as Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Machines and not classified under the category of mobile phones.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the request for conversion of shipping bills under section 149 of the Customs Act,1962 on the ground of no prescribed time limit applicable for applying conversion or amendment of documents.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) quashed the order passed by the adjudicating authority of rejection of the request for conversion and allowed the appeal for conversion of the shipping bills filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act,1994 for the short payment of the service tax on the ground of genuine disclosure of audited balance sheet.
A single-member bench comprising K.Anpazhakan (Technical) quashed the penalty imposed by the department while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the obligation of reversing CENVAT credit from excise duty is not applicable if the goods are supplied against the International Competitive Bidding under rule 6(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) quashed the demand of duty and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the membrane system of imported goods is eligible for availing the benefits of exemption of customs duty under exemption notification.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) upheld the decision made by the Commissioner while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand of customs duty for clearing Agro waste-fired boilers on the ground of the genuine disclosure of all the relevant documents by the assessee.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) upheld the order of the original authority and quashed the demand of duty for a normal period while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reduced the excessive redemption fine and penalty imposed for confiscation of goods on the ground of 100% examination of imported goods.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) reduced the excessive redemption fine and penalty imposed by the original authority to the assessee.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed the Principal Commissioner to exclude the demand of service tax concerning the extended period of limitation for collection of excess baggage charges which falls under the category of transport of passengers by air service.
The two-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) directed the Principal Commissioner to re-determine the service tax by excluding the demand concerning the extended period of limitation and partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the manufacturer was eligible to avail of the CENVAT credit of custom duty on inputs used for the manufacture and fabrication of capital goods under rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit rules,2004.
The two-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President) and Anajani Kumar (Technical) quashed the penalty imposed and held that the assessee was eligible to avail of the CENVAT credit on inputs used for the manufacture and fabrication of capital goods.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the show cause notice demanding custom duty for wrongly availing concessional rate of duty on the ground of Limitation.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi C.S (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao(Technical) held that the issuance of show cause notice was time-barred and cannot sustain while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act,1944 for confiscating goods on the ground of passing of CENVAT credit through fake invoices.
A single-member bench comprising Binu Tamta (Judicial) held that the decision made by the Commissioner (Appeals) was as per the law while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
