This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) reported at Taxscan from 2 December 2024 to 11 December 2024.
The Ahmedabad bench of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), in the matter of Adani Estate, ruled that sale of building prior to completion of construction constitutes works contract.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro v. State of Karnataka, CESTAT concluded that the sale of a building before construction completion indeed constitutes a works contract. The tribunal dismissed the department’s objections and upheld the appellant’s classification and valuation practices.
In a ruling in favour of India Trade Promotion Organization (ITPO), the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that 6% interest is fixed on refund of pre deposit under Central Excise Act as per Central Tax Rate Notification.
While allowing the appeal, the bench held that the appellant to be entitled for getting interest on the amount of refund from the date of payment till the date of its disbursement, however at the rate of 6%.
In a significant case, the New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the penalty imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it was proven that the misdeclaration of nature of goods in bill of entry.
The bench held that the appellant had intentionally mis-declared the nature of the goods in the Bill of Entry. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- each was correctly imposed on the appellant under sections 114AA and 112 of the Act. While dismissing the appeal, the bench upheld the impugned order.
In a recent case, the Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)upheld the denial of cenvat credit against pepsico as manpower supply services and anti termite or pesticide treatment services used for construction activities.
The bench viewed that it was a fit case where the proceedings should have been closed following the dictum of sub-section (2) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the order revoking the customs broker license, citing the Inquiry Officer’s failure to provide critical investigation reports and witness statements to the appellant.
The tribunal quashed the revocation order and set aside all penalties imposed on the appellant.
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) Ahmedabad bench has modified its earlier decision in the case of Lyka Labs, ruling that time-barred demands for CENVAT credit do not attract interest.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable to pay interest on the reversed CENVAT credit amount of ₹60,15,116/-. The ROM application was allowed, and the order was modified to this extent, setting aside the demand for interest. This decision reinforces the principle that time-barred demands do not carry an associated interest liability.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
