Recently the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Kolkata has quashed a service tax demand of Rs. 4,20,162/- against an assessee, M/s Saila Shipping & Clearing Agency Private Limited, after it was revealed that the company had paid an excess amount against the alleged shortfall.
After reviewing the evidence, the tribunal bench of Mr Ashok Jindal and Mr K Anpazhakan found that the assessee had indeed paid an excess amount of Rs. 4.62 lakh, surpassing the amount in question. As a result, the Rs. 4.20 lakh demand was ruled unsustainable, and the tribunal dismissed the penalty and demand imposed by the tax authorities. The CESTAT also rejected the appeal by the Revenue Department, upholding the assessee’s stance that no service tax was due on reimbursable expenses.
In a ruling recently, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Kolkata reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on an assessee, M/s Rahul Agro Industries, to Rs. 25 lakhs each, as extension of import restrictions by the Customs department was observed to be excessive amidst the assessee’s suffering of detention and demurrage charges.
In light of these circumstances, CESTAT further reduced the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 25 lakhs each, providing some relief to the assessee while maintaining the authority’s stance on the restricted status of the imported goods. In result, the revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Bangalore recently set aside an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore against Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ( BHEL ) warranting recovery of credit of Rs.1,14,03,656/- for the period during 2006-07 to 2008-09, in light of lack of statutory recovery mechanism in effect during the concerned period.
The two-member Bench of CESTAT constituted by D.M. Misra, Judicial Member and R Bhagya Devi, Technical Member referenced the findings of the same Tribunal in Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, LTU, Bengaluru (2024) to affirm that there was no recovery mechanism under Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the subject period and the explanation permitting recovery of CENVAT Credit under Rule 3(5B) was introduced by Notification No. 3/2013 dated 01.03.2013. In light of the findings, CESTAT set aside the impugned order citing inability to retrospectively apply the provisions of the updated Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for recovery of credit during the period from 2006-07 to 2008-09.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) recently rebuked the Revenue for illicitly invoking the provisions of Section 142(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( CGST Act ) to deny Central Value Added Tax ( CENVAT ) to Bosch Automotive.
The CESTAT Bench presided over by Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member referred to the case of Terex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST & C.E., Salem (2022) wherein the Chennai CESTAT held that Section 142(3), being a transitional provision for claim of refund after the introduction of the GST Regime requires refund claims of any amount paid under the erstwhile law to be disposed in cash according to the provisions of the erstwhile law. In light of the judicial precedents, CESTAT observed that invocation of Section 142(8) of the GST Act is warranted only when amounts are recoverable from an Assessee in pursuance of an assessment or adjudication proceedings initiated before, on or after the appointed date.
In a recent case, the Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that the service tax leviable on publicity charges received by media companies from intermediary agencies. It was bserved that a sub-contractor would be liable to pay Service Tax even if the main contractor has discharged Service Tax liability on the activity undertaken by the sub-contractor in pursuance of the contract.
The two-member bench of Binu Tamta ( Judicial Member ) and Hemambika R. Priya ( Technical Member ) has observed that a sub-contractor would be liable to pay Service Tax even if the main contractor has discharged Service Tax liability on the activity undertaken by the sub-contractor in pursuance of the contract. While dismissing the appeal, the tribunal upheld the demand along with interest on the ‘Publicity Charges’ received by the appellant for the normal period only. Further set aside the penalties under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1944.
In a recent ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) of Kolkata held that statements retracted during cross-examination have no evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon for demanding excise duty.
The bench of Mr Ashok Jindal and Mr Anpazhakan further highlighted that under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, statements used as evidence must be tested through cross-examination to establish their credibility. Since this process was not properly followed in this case, the tribunal ruled that the retracted statements could not be relied upon to substantiate the excise duty demand. In light of these findings, the CESTAT quashed the demand for Rs. 12.69 crore in excise duties and the accompanying penalties, including those imposed on Singh and Director of the assessee company, stating that without credible evidence, the claims could not be sustained.
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that softwares / Websites Development service or consultancy on the internet requires human intervention and cannot be categorized as Online Information and Data Based Access or Retrieval Services ( OIDAR Service ).
The two member bench of Rachna Gupta ( Judicial Member ) and Hemambika R. Priya ( Technical Member ) has observed that the online database access/retrival is firstly available through Internet Service Providers ( ISP ). It was held that the appellant’s activity is wrongly hold as OIDAR. The confirmation of demand is held to be based on wrong presumption ( as elaborated above ) is denied to be called OIDAR. Rule 6(A) of Service Tax Rules is also held to have been wrongly invoked.
In a ruling in favour of Steel Authority of India ( SAIL ), the Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that writing down the inputs for Income-tax purposes cannot be equated with writing-off the inputs under Rule 3 (5B) of CCR ( Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ).
The single bench of Rachna Gupta ( Judicial Member ) has observed that there is no denial to the fact that the non/slow moving inventory has at a certain stage being used by the appellant in its manufacturing process. Hence the inventory which had not become obsolete cannot be called as the entry written off. As already observed above Rule 3(5B) CCR is invokable in relation to written off entry only. The tribunal held that provisions of rule 3 (5B) CCR are applicable only when the value of asset and or inventory is written off fully or partially, or wherein any specific provision to write-off fully or partially has been made in the books of accounts.
Recently, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Chennai overturned a Customs department order that had rejected a refund claim by one assessee/ appellant, Shriram Impex India Pvt. Ltd. for the Special Additional Duty ( SAD ) on goods imported into India, observing that there was a failure to consider BoE duly explained by CA certificate before rejecting the refund claim.
Additionally, the Tribunal referenced the precedent set by the Madras High Court in P.P. Products Ltd. v. Commissioner (2019), where the importance of documentary evidence in refund claims and limited the scope for Customs authorities to question the accuracy of CA certifications unless fraud or misrepresentation was proven, was discussed. In line with this judgment, the Tribunal affirmed that the assessee had met all documentary requirements to substantiate its refund claim. In conclusion, the CESTAT set aside the Commissioner’s rejection of the refund claim, upholding the sufficiency of the CA certificate and supporting documents to validate the refund request.
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) recently in a ruling held that subordinate authorities cannot impose qualifications not prescribed by law.
The Tribunal further referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018), which clarified that statutory interpretation, especially in fiscal laws, must adhere to the plain language of the statute. Strict adherence to the statute is required, ensuring neither interpretation nor additional qualifications alter legislative intent. Therefore, since the amended Section 35FF categorically provides for interest on pre-deposit refunds from the date of deposit, the Tribunal deemed the Assistant Commissioner’s order legally sound. In conclusion, CESTAT annulled the Commissioner’s order and upheld the assessee’s entitlement to both the principal refund and interest, confirming that subordinate authorities cannot impose additional, unauthorized requirements.
In a significant judgment, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee/appellant, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., now merged into Vodafone Idea Ltd., allowing the telecom giant to claim CENVAT credit based on debit notes rather than invoices. The tribunal held that a document name being ‘ Debit Note’ is no reason to deny CENVAT credit to Vodafone.
The Tribunal dismissed the tax authority’s reliance on the Gujarat High Court ruling in CCE vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., noting that it involved different circumstances that did not apply to the assessee’s case. The tribunal observed that the Cadila case involved commission agents whose activities did not relate to the sale or promotion of goods in the manner claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that Cadila’s circumstances were not applicable to the assessee’s situation, which involved CENVAT credit claims for input services utilized directly in telecom service provision.
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in a recent case has held that after obtaining Occupancy Certificate in respect of unsold carpet area for which no service tax will be leviable, cenvat credit already availed when the activity was taxable, the cenvat credit need not be recovered.
The single bench of Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) has observed that Service Tax Law does not provide for levy of service tax on the flats or buildings constructed for which Occupancy Certificate is obtained. Therefore, carpet area of 21,010 square feet constructed by the appellant was not liable to levy of service tax. Revenue has invoked Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules which provides for circumstances where cenvat credit is admissible or not admissible depending on taxability or otherwise of output service. While allowing the appeal, the tribunal held that the appellant had availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services when the output service was subjected to levy of service tax.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that once the VAT liability is discharged, service tax cannot be demanded.
The two-member bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) And P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd., (2008) which held that service tax cannot be demanded on transactions where VAT is discharged. The tribunal agreed that VAT and service tax cannot be applied simultaneously on the same transaction due to their mutual exclusivity. It noted that since the appellant had already paid VAT on the JCB leasing transactions, imposing service tax on the same transaction was unjustified. In addition to this, the tribunal recognized the appellant’s adherence to VAT requirements, supporting their classification of the JCB leasing as a “deemed sale.” Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders related to the service tax demand, allowing the appeals with any applicable benefits as per the law. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Chennai has ruled in favor of Noritsu India Pvt. Ltd., holding that minor procedural lapses should not prevent taxpayers from receiving a refund of the 4% Special Additional Duty ( SAD ) when taxes are fully paid and compliance is evident.
In light of these findings, the single-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Shri M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) concluded that the appellant’s claim should be accepted. The bench stressed the importance of distinguishing between substantive tax compliance and procedural lapses, particularly when minor errors can be easily cured. Boost Your Business with SME IPO Funding Strategies – Enroll Now The bench highlighted that strict procedural adherence should not overshadow compliance with core tax obligations. Consequently, the bench set aside the order rejecting the appellant’s refund and directed the Customs Department to issue the refund with applicable relief. The decision affirmed that procedural deficiencies alone cannot negate legitimate refund claims when tax payments are demonstrably made.
In a recent ruling of The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai it was decided that no penalty should be imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act for Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) issued after the payment of duty.
Judicial member P Dinesha and Technical member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that the appellant had accepted the need to include the amortized cost of capital goods supplied free of cost of the capital goods supplied free of cost in the value of finished products supplied to M/s. Hanil. It was also observed that the impugned order cannot be sustained only on the issue of imposition of penalty under 11AC of Central Excise 1944. Therefore the appeal was allowed.
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that food testing ELISA kits are not for diagnostic purposes on humans and animals, therefore no customs duty exemption is applicable on ELISA kits.
The two member bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that ELISA kits imported by the appellant were not used in the evaluation of physical, biophysical or biochemical processes and states in animals and humans, and as a result, they were not diagnostic reagent/kits rather they were meant to be used for food testing and, therefore, did not fulfill the criteria to avail the benefit of expression as per the notification.While dismissing the appeal, the tribunal held that appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification in respect of the kits imported by him for food testing in terms of the expression used in the notification and also keeping in view the intention under which the notification has been issued, i.e., to grant exemption to the goods related to medical treatment and diagnosis.
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has slamed excise dept for useless exercise of adjudication & appellate process for more than 10 years at different forum. It was observed that it would be an useless exercise to further deal with the matter when both parties/adversaries are not in variance with each other stand.
The bench of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) has observed that it would be an useless exercise to further deal with the matter when both parties/adversaries are not in variance with each other stand. While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax. Vinod S. Chettiparambil appeared on behalf of the Appellant and Rajesh Ostwal appeared on behalf of the respondent.
In a recent decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT BB) in Bangalore quashed an order issued under extended limitation for the recovery of service tax from one assessee, Synergy Computer Education, a training institute operated by Vasundhara A.G.K, observing that mere non-payment of service tax is not “suppression of fact” to justify the invocation of an extended limitation period for tax recovery.
CESTAT thus quashed the extended limitation order, invalidating the demand for tax recovery for periods beyond the standard limitation. The Tribunal directed the adjudication authority to reassess and compute any potential liability only for the normal limitation period. Additionally, penalties levied under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act were dismissed. The case was remanded to the adjudication authority to determine the service tax due within the standard period, with the assessee receiving consequential relief as permitted by law.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that excise duty not applicable on branded readymade garments manufactured before 01.03.2011.
The two member bench of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) has observed that the goods were manufactured before 28.02.2011 and the branded readymade garments were brought into central excise levy with effect from 01.03.2011. Central excise duty is on manufacture and the collection of duty is deferred from the point of incidence till the goods are cleared from the factory for the purpose of administrative convenience. Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal held that the goods were not leviable to central excise duty in terms of exemption Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004.
Recently in a judgment, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) of Allahabad reduced the high-pitched redemption fine imposed on an assessee, Tinna Rubber & Infrastructure Ltd., against goods confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
Upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal, led by members Mr. P.K. Choudhary and Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, acknowledged the oversight and clarified that while the goods were indeed subject to confiscation under Section 111(d), the fines were excessive considering the nature of the violation. Thus, it reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 3 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 2 lakhs, providing partial relief to the assessee.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
