This weekly summary analyses the stories related to the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that have been published at Taxscan.in. during the previous week from September 16 to September 22 2023.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed service tax demand and observed that the subsequent service of order copy is date of communication of order-in-original.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “We are of the view that the subsequent service of the order copy to the appellant on 22.07.2022 is the date of communication of the order-in-original to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed on 19.09.2022 is well within the prescribed time limit of two months (60days), therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a fresh order on merits of the case.” “Our view, authorised legal representative cannot be equated with an authorised agent of the assessee. For this reason, also service of the order to authorised representative i.e. Chartered Accountant dealing with the matter before the Adjudicating Authority is not legal and proper” the Tribunal noted.
In a major relief to M/s Tata Motors Limited, the appellant, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), allowed excise duty exemption to Chassis on projects funded by International Organization.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and K.Anpazhakan, Member (Technical) observed that “As in the appellant’s own case, the benefit of exemption Notification against Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 as amended vide Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008, is given by this Tribunal, therefore, following the said decision, we allow the exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 as amended vide Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008 as the appellant has cleared the Chassis in question to the projects funded by International Organization.”
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded the matter of cenvat credit reversal for verification of actual availment and substantive reversal.
A two member bench comprising Mr C J Mathew, Member (Technical) and Mr Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) observed that “the utilization of credit for cleared products is tantamount to reversal and, hence, recovery of such credit is an exercise in superfluity. These decisions were not available with the adjudicating authority then and has settled the law on recovery thereupon. Learned Authorized Representative has suggested that actual availment and corresponding substantive reversal need to be verified.” The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for such verification and to limit recovery, if any, only to such credit as is in excess of that availed on procurement of the three products.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)refused to release 26 gold biscuit seized under Customs Act,1962 as the gold was smuggled using fabricated challan.
A two member bench comprising Mr. R Muralidhar, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Rajeev Tandon, Member (Technical) observed that Supreme Court in case of KL Pavanny v. Asstt. Collector (HQ), has had held that “a mere general corroboration is sufficient and each of the detail was not required to be gone into. It even upheld the validity of the statement, containing wealth of information that was retracted in close proximity of making it and therefore disallowed the said retraction.” The CESTAT held that no case is made out by the appellants, calling for interference in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal upheld the order and dismissed the appeals filed.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside demand of proportionate cenvat credit as assessee reversed the same along with interest.There is no need to demand of proportionate cenvat credit when the assessee itself reversed the same as per the amendment on Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010.
A two member bench comprising Shri Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial) and Shri k. Anpazhakan, Member(Technical) held that “proportionate reversal of cenvat credit will suffice to meet the end of justice in the proceeding before us. Therefore, no demand is sustainable against the appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded the Payment of Cenvat credit on inputs used in exempted goods under Rule 6(3)A of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 as the matter was pending in Supreme Court decision.
The two member bench comprising Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) held that “ it will be in the interest of justice that this matter maybe finally decided only after the Apex Court delivers its judgment in Dharamsi Morarji chemical Co. Ltd. (Supra) case.” The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Dharamsi Morarji chemical Co. Ltd.
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that benefit of excise notification not allowable in absence of commencement of commercial production of aluminium.
The appellant’s submission that it was manufacturing products in the moose furnaces, which were essentially karahais with fire under them are not convinced by the CESTAT as it was impossible that those furnaces would have been able to produce ingots on such a large scale and certainly they could not have extruded and produced aluminium extruded products, such as, aluminium sections. While dismissing the appeal, the CESTAT upheld the impugned order. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service of manufacture of excisable goods in terms of section 2(f) of Central Excise Act ,1944 does not falls under definition of business auxiliary service.
The two member bench comprising Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) held that “since the plant machinery equipment used for the purpose of production belongs to the appellant, the service is not classified under Management, Maintenance & Repair Service. Further, the activities carried out by the appellant are undoubtedly production of goods on job work basis on behalf of GCL”. “As per the definition of business auxiliary service manufacture of excisable goods in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is clearly excluded from the definition of business auxiliary service. For this reason also, the demand of service tax is not sustainable.”, the Tribunal observed. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the Appeal.
The Delhi High Court quashed the revocation of Customs Broker Licence by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), and observed that there is no necessity that every contravention of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013 (CBLR) be visited with extreme punishment or revocation of license.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that “There is a range of punishment that can be imposed by the Commissioner of Customs and it is not necessary that every contravention of the Regulations be visited with the extreme punishment or revocation of license, which in effect would deprive the custom broker of his livelihood.” The Court noted that the CESTAT had failed to consider whether the punishment imposed was disproportionately high, as contended by the appellant and was of the view that the punishment of revocation of appellant’s CB License, is disproportionately excessive.
In the case of Videocon Industries, the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the interest of refund is allowable even if refund was granted after 3 months from date of Commissioner’s order. As per Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962,an assessee is entitled for the refund if the same is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub section (1) of Section 27 of the act.
In light of the judgements, the two member bench comprising Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) held that “the appellant is legally entitled for interest on the refund granted to them after three months from the date of the application i.e. 22.07.2003 till the grant of refund i.e. 25.06.2012 as per the rate of interest as prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962.” The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Service Tax not leviable on construction of complex service under Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994 for construction of houses under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM ).
In view of the various judgments, the two member bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and C L Mahar, Member (Technical) observed that in respect of construction service provided to the service recipient M/s. GSPHCL and Surat Municipal Corporation under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission are non-taxable. While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax demandable on reimburseable expense in absence of evidence to prove collection of higher charge in electricity charge.
A two member bench comprising Mrs. Sulekha Beevi C S, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) set aside the demand of Service Tax on the reimbursable expenses.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Sensur Rubefacient and Herbyl Skin Ointment is classifiable as ayurveda medicaments when active ingredient are ayurvedic.
The two member bench comprising of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical member) viewed that “to classify medicament as Ayurvedic medicament, the following criteria to be satisfied. 1.The medicament should be manufactured out of Ayurvedic ingredient specified in Ayurvedic Grantha or Ayurveda authoritative books. 2.The medicament is sold as ayurvedic medicine in the trade parlance etc. In the present case some of the ingredients such as Boric acid, Lanoline Anhydrous, White Soft Paraffin, Essence of Jasmine, Salicyclic Acid, and Bees wax have been used were claimed by the department as other than ayurvedic ingredients.”
It was important to examine whether they are active or non-active and whether they are also covered under Ayurvedic authoritative books. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that compression of natural gas amount to manufacture under Central Excise Tariff Act and service tax is not leviable under Business Auxiliary Service(BAS).
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar Member (Technical) held that “The Commissioner has rightly dropped the proceeding of the show cause notice, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence the same is upheld, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Cross Objection also stands disposed of.”
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed denovo adjudication since the rectification order passed by original adjudicating authority on application under section 74 of Finance Act,1994 without hearing.
Since the adjudication order was passed without any hearing and as per the order there was error in computing the demand, the two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar Member (Technical) remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for passing denovo adjudication order after considering the appellants submission to be made.
The Bangalore bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the appeal by Commissioner of Customs (COC)(the appellant), Cochin against 4% SAD (Special Additional Duty) refund allowable on imported goods claimed by Mirc Electronics Ltd(the respondent) as there is no requirement that the VAT Chelan should show the bill of entry.
The two- member bench consisting of P.A Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) concluded that the Commissioner of Customs admits that Mirc Electronics Ltd had submitted the VAT Chelan and the only objection is that the Chelan was not correlating with the bill of entry, but there was no requirement for mentioning bill of entry number in the Sale Tax/VAT authority on the sale of goods. The bench further stated that the certificate of the Charted Accountant with the details linking each sale invoice with the bill of entry alone is sufficient for the said correlation. Therefore the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (the respondent) was not justified in issuing an order for levying Service Tax as Johnson Lifts Pvt Ltd (the appellants) had paid value added tax (VAT).
The two-member bench consisting of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) followed the decision by the Supreme Court and held that the impugned order could not be sustained and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits if any was available as per law.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded the issue regarding the appeal filed by the Municipal Council, Gidderbaha (the Appellant) against the order by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Ludhiana (the Respondent) as non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit cannot be the sole reason for dismissal of the appeal.
The bench consisting of S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) after hearing both sides held that “I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has entertained the appeal without raising the objection of mandatory pre-deposit and the appeal was listed for hearing on merits and it was heard on merits and thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly rejected the appeal for non-compliance of Section 35F”. The bench further stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not bothered to obtain the report from the lower authority with regard to the deposit. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner was further directed to dispose of the matter within three months.
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by the Punjab Cricket Association (PCA) for exemption of service tax for the Club or Association like services rendered by them to its members as the Commissioner of Central Excise (CCE) (the respondent) could not provide sufficient evidence to support their arguments.
The two-member bench consisting of S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar, after hearing both sides held that the Revenue had not adduced any evidence to demonstrate that the PCA had collected the charges for providing services to its members and in the view of the fact that the PCA was registered under the Society Registration Act, the PCA are not liable to pay service tax under the heading “Club or Association Service”. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal by K. Natrajan (the Appellant) against the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (the Respondent) for importing Chinese phones, as the grounds for the penalty could not be established.
The two-member bench consisting of Sulekha Beevi C.S (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagagiri Rao (Technical Member) supported the findings of K. Natrajan and held that Natrajan had only assisted in filing the documents on behalf of the importer as required of a CHA Firm and not in personal capacity. The bench further held that as there was no allegation that Natrajan had committed any act in helping the import of the illegal goods, the penalty imposed was not warranted or justified and the appeal was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Cenvat Credit can be utilized for payment of excise duty either on finished goods or indigenous inputs.
A single member bench comprising Mr. Ramesh Nair,Member (Judicial) held that “the cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of excise duty either on the finished goods or on the indigenous inputs. However, in case of imported inputs the additional duty of custom has to be paid in cash and not by debiting cenvat credit account in terms of Rule 3 of CCR, 2004.” “(i)In case of imported inputs/raw material, the additional duty of custom shall be paid from cash and not from cenvat credit. (ii)In case of duty liability on indigenous raw material and finished goods, since the duty is of excise the same shall be paid from cenvat account. (iii)In case of payment of duty in cash as against the debit in cenvat account already made, the appellant is at liberty to recredit the same in their cenvat account and approach the department for refund in cash in terms of Section 142 of CGST Act and the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.”, the Tribunal held.
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that merely classifying services under an incorrect head does not amount to fraud or suppression of fact.
A two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr C L Mahar Member (Technical) observed that “Mere omission or merely classifying its services under an incorrect head does not amount to fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The intention has to be proved to invoke extended period of limitation.”
In the case of Larsen & Toubro dated 20 August, 2015, prior to which there was no clear ruling that services which involved supply or deemed supply of goods could only be classified under Works Contract Service. Therefore, demand is time barred and, therefore, cannot sustain. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no direction to treat period of interest starting after 3 months from date of filing refund, denial of interest on refund of cenvat credit not legal.
A single member bench comprising Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) that since there is clear direction by the Commissioner (Appeals) to pay interest and there was further direction to treat the period of interest starting after three months from the date of filing of refund claim i.e. 9.5.2019, the denial of interest subsequently by the Adjudicating Authority is highly illegal a While allowing the appeal, the impugned order is set aside and the Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant the interest starting from 9th August, 2019 till the date of disbursement i.e. 30th December, 2020.
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not leviable under commercial or industrial construction service for construction service based on work contracts before 1.06 .2007.
Since there is no evidence to suggest that the service rendered by the appellant was not under works contract and the two-member bench comprising Mr P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and Mr M Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) held that there is no liability to pay tax under “Commercial or Industrial Construction Service” during the period under dispute which is before 01.06.2007. The CESTAT set aside the order and allowed the appeal.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai bench has quashed the recovery of Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) credit from ACC Limited, an Input Service Distributor (ISD).
The single bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) affirmed that Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 can only be applied against the manufacturer, service provider or the entity that availed the allegedly inadmissible credit. The bench concluded that the entire demand raised against the appellant was not sustainable in law. Moreover, the bench noted that the disputed credits in question were admissible. In result, the bench allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-Thane), Mumbai granting consequential relief, if any clarifying that Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be invoked against ISDs.
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ruled that cenvat credit is allowable on inputs used for fabrication of capital goods for plant and machinery.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Anil Choudhary, Judicial Member and AK Jyotishi, Technical Member observed that “The Appellant have maintained proper records and have declared the Cenvat credit taken and/or availed regularly in the returns filed with the Department. Thus, there is no case of any concealment, mis-statement or fraud on the part of the Appellant/assessee.” “We further find that as regards the capital goods fabricated out of the inputs, there is no allegation that such capital goods have been sourced from any other manufacturer by the Appellant/ assessee. We further find that under the facts and circumstances, the court below failed to consider the eligibility of Cenvat credit disputed as inputs, as defined in rule 2(K) of CCR” the Bench concluded.
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ruled that service tax is demand not leviable on unauthenticated data as there was failure in the part of Investigating Officers to comply with conditions of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA).
A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical Member observed that “Electronic records being more susceptible to tempering, alteration, transposition, excision etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. The provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 36B of Central Excise Act, 1944 of the Act are pari-materia. It is evident from the panchanama, and the appeals records that the investigating officer had failed to follow the safeguard as mandated under Section36B of the Act.” “In the present matter the investigating officers failed to comply with the conditions of Section36B of the Act in respect to relying upon this computer printout. In view of the above we hold that service tax demand based on such unauthenticated data is not sustainable and hence are set aside” the Bench concluded.
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed service tax demand on erection, commissioning and installation of windmills as there was consistent declaration of services under works contract.
A Two-Member Bench comprising M Ajit Kumar, Technical Member and P Dinesha, Judicial Member observed that “Since the appellant consistently declared the services under ‘works contract’ and paid tax accordingly, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders reclassifying the impugned service under erection, commissioning and installation cannot sustain and resultantly, the same are set aside.”
The Chandigarh bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal by Niterra India Private Limited, formerly known as NGK Spark Plugs Pvt. Ltd (the Appellant) against the order by The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi (the respondent) demanding the Cenvat Credit availed by NGK Sparkplugs Pvt Ltd with interest and penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The two member bench consisting of S.S Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) heard both sides and supported the submissions made on behalf of the company and held that the credit availed by the company could not be denied as their activities can be classified as Input Services in relation to the business activity of the company and the appeal was allowed.
The Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that upgrading existing plants can be considered Input Services under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) and allowed appeal by General Motors Pvt Ltd (the Appellant) against order by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the order issued by The Commissioner of Central Excise (CCE), Vadodara (the Respondent)
The two member bench consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and C.L. Mahar (Technical Member) after hearing both sides supported the submissions made on behalf of the company and held that, “From the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) before and after 01.04.2011, the services in relation to modernization, renovation and repairs of factory premises was clearly covered under the inclusion part of the definition” and allowed the Cenvat Credit claim regarding construction services. The bench further held that, “The credit on insurance for staff/ directors is admissible input service. However, the appellant have admittedly reversed the Cenvat credit in respect of insurance service for the period post 01.04.2011. Accordingly, the demand of Cenvat credit on insurance service which was reversed by the appellant is maintained, without expressing any view on merit which was reversed by the appellant is maintained, without expressing any view on merit.” And the appeal was allowed.
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the benefit of excise duty exemption allowable on molasses captively consumed for the manufacture of rectified spirit and quashed the duty demand.
A two-member bench comprising Ms Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member(Technical) in light of the judgement held set aside the impugned order and allowed the Appeal.
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Waiver of Penalty under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 allowable in the absence of Evidence Establishing Suppression of fact with Intention to Evade Tax.
A two-member bench comprising Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. K. Anpazhakan, Member (Technical) observed that “if the Appellant has any intention to evade payment of tax, they could not have declared more tax liability than what was demanded in the Notice, on their own volition. Thus, we hold that there is suppression of fact with an intention to evade payment of tax has been not established in this case. Accordingly, we observe that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and waive the penalty and we do the same.”
The Kolkata bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-adjudication as the Live Consignment was pending without Justiciable Reason.
A two-member bench comprising Mr. P. K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and. Mr. Rajeev Tandon, Member (Technical) observed that the live consignment is pending with the Department and there are no justifiable reasons recorded on merits in the matter. Further noted that besides incurring detention and other charges, any delay in the matter is only adding to the loss of prestige and credibility before the foreign buyer. As there is no appropriate order passed by the Department on merits, the CESTAT remanded the aforesaid matter to the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs concerned with a direction that the case of the appellant assessee exporter be disposed of within 10 days from the date of receipt of the Order. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for a fresh decision in the matter.
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the transaction value of silk yarn can’t be rejected without cogent reason and set aside the demand of excise duty on the enhanced value.
A two-member bench comprising Ms Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Vasa Seshagiri Rao Kumar, Member (Technical) observed that there aren’t any proper reasons given by the department to reject the transaction value. It was also not brought out in evidence as to the comparison of the various parameters about quality, and quantity of the goods imported. “Merely because the value declared for the goods in a single Bill of Entry dated 25.11.2010 is 28 USD, the department has rejected the transaction value. It is not established that the commercial parameters as to the quality, quantity, and manufacturer are similar.”, bench viewed. The CESTAT held that “the demand of duty, confiscation, imposition of redemption fine and penalty imposed cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do.”
The Delhi bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the demand for excise duty on Waste rubber granules beyond the period of normal limitation is not valid.
A two-member Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Mr. P V Subba Rao, Member (Technical) observed that “If differential duty was chargeable but was not paid and it is later discovered by audit and it gets time-barred under Section 11A, the responsibility for it rests squarely on the officers mandated to scrutinize the returns in time and raise a demand in time.” Since the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation, the CESTAT set aside the demand in the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a rebate is not allowable without proving the correlation between exported services and Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC). The CESTAT remanded the matter to the original authority with a direction not to raise any other issue and examine receipt of convertible foreign exchange against individual invoices or set of invoices covered by the rebate claim and if such foreign exchange is received, then to that extent to allow the rebate.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
