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 29 to August 04, 2023.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the metal finishing chemical or electroplating salts fall under the category of ‘consumables’ and are entitled to benefit of exemption under exemption notification.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and C.L Mahar (Technical) quashed the demand of Central Excise Duty while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty imposed for revocation of permission granted for operating as ship chandlers on the ground of non-violation of section 89 of the Customs Act,1962.
The two-member bench comprising P. A Augustian (Judicial) and R.Bhagya Devu (Technical) quashed the penalty imposed for revocation of permission granted for operating as ship chandlers while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax is leviable on the sale of vehicles subjected to Value Added Tax (VAT).
The Tribunal in a similar case held that “even in the worse situation in various cases where the parts and components were used in repair and maintenance of motor vehicle even then merely because the part so used in repairs and maintenance were separately billed and VAT was paid thereon, the Tribunal held that on the value of such parts, though used for repair and maintenance service of the vehicle will not be liable to service tax as the same was suffered VAT.” “When there is sale of goods and VAT is paid no service tax can be demanded. In the present case, it is undisputed that the element i.e. amount towards Handling and Forwarding charges, the appellant has shown as part of the sale value of the goods and VAT was paid”, the two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar, Member (Technical) held.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the benefit for exemption from excise duty not applicable to goods in respect of which the CENVAT credit of duty on inputs was already taken under the provisions of CENVAT credit rules.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi C.S (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao(Technical) upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal filed by the department.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the service performed by the foreign service provider outside India was not liable to pay service tax on a reverse charge basis.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and C.L Mahar (Technical) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that commercial and industrial construction services are exempted from service tax under the exemption notification.
The two-member bench comprising S.S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) quashed the demand for service tax while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reduced the excessive penalty imposed for the confiscation of prohibited goods on the ground of consideration of Minimum Import Price.
A single-member bench comprising A.K Jyotishi (Technical) reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs) from Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs).
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-adjudication for confirming the demand of Customs duty for manufacturing dutiable goods on job work basis without disclosing verification report.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and C.L Mahar (Technical) quashed the demand of Customs duty and the matter was required to be remanded to the First Authority to consider the same in accordance with law and on merits.
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the goods can be confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act,1962 if it was prohibited under Customs Act or any other law.
A single-member bench comprising A.K Jyothishi (Technical) held that the goods imported by the assessee were included in the prohibited list and the goods were liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the penalty imposed for the import of car electronic goods on the ground of illegal undervaluation of imported goods.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and K.Anpazhakan (Technical) upheld the penalty imposed for being actively involved in the import of the impugned goods and undervalued the imported goods.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand of Customs Duty of approximately 2.5 crores for the clandestine removal of goods on the ground of the absence of corroborative evidence.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and K.Anpazhakan (Technical) quashed the demand of Customs Duty while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the discharge of service tax on output service of repair, maintenance of equipment and appliances by the service provider was eligible to avail CENVAT credit.
A single-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) quashed the demand for CENVAT credit and the penalty while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand of Customs Duty imposed for the import of car electronic goods on the ground of the absence of real importers.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and. K.Anpazhakan (Technical) quashed the demand of Customs Duty while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-consideration of the penalty imposed for the non-payment of service tax under the category of management, maintenance, or repair of service without verifying relevant documents.
The two-member bench comprising S.S Garg (Judicial) and Anjani Kumar (Technical) directed to remand back the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh in the light of copies of the documents submitted by the assessee and changes brought out in the provisions of Service Tax.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-adjudication for recovery of arrears of central excise duty confirmed on the clearance of excisable goods without verifying excise returns.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and K.Anbazhakan (Technical) remanded back the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the settlement of disputes cannot be considered as a ground for denial of renewal of a license under section 58(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) held that the department cannot deny the request for renewing the license and the order for cancellation of the license cannot survive while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the universal joint cross and parts of the universal joint cross suitable for use solely with transmission shaft are classifiable under Chapter 87 of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act,1975.
The two-member bench comprising Rachna Gupta (President) and Hemambika Priya (Technical) quashed the classification made by the department while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the penalty imposed for the confiscation of hot rolled steel plates on the ground of genuine disclosure of quantities and weight of the imported goods.
A single-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair(Judicial) quashed the penalty imposed for the confiscation of imported goods while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for enhancing the value of a second-hand car so as to demand differential customs duty without giving notice to the assessee.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) revising the value of the car while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the cancellation of the Customs broker license on the ground of non-violation of regulations of 11(d), 11(e ), and 11(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) Rules,2013.
The two-member bench comprising Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Subba Rao (Technical) quashed the cancellation of the license of the appellant, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of penalty on the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no service tax is leviable on service rendered to foreign suppliers which fall under the category of ‘export of service’.
The two-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika Priya (Technical) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand for excise duty imposed for clandestine manufacturing and clearance of cigarettes on the ground of the absence of an actual manufacturer.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and K.Anpazhakan (Technical) quashed the demand for excise duty and penalty imposed while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the demand for CENVAT credit and penalty imposed for the wrongful availed credit on the ground of violations of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) guidelines.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Ajith Kumar (Technical) upheld the demand for credit and imposition of penalty imposed on the assessee.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the lapse or failure to comply with the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 does not attract penalty action under sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act,1962.
A single-member bench comprising Ajith Kumar (Technical) upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-adjudication against the denial of CENVAT Credit of excise duty availed on the iron and steel item used for the fabrication of machinery which falls under the category of capital goods.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair(Judicial) and C.L Mahar (Technical) remanded back the matter to Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order after compliance with the principles of natural justice while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no authority was given to the Customs Broker to determine or re-determine the value of any imported or exported goods used in the Customs purpose as per the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR),2013.
The two-member bench comprising Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Subba Rao (Technical) held that the assessee did not violate any regulations defined under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
