This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at Taxscan from 03 March 2025 to March 08 2025.
M/s. Samudera Shipping Line (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs (Port) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 266
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) recently held that a penalty cannot be imposed if there is no customs violation. It observed that the export proceeded after customs clearance and the receival of foreign remittance. It quashed the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The tribunal observed that the shipment was eventually exported with customs clearance, suggesting that at some point, customs authorities allowed the consignment to proceed. It was also noted that the revenue did not dispute the fact that the export actually took place and that the foreign exchange remittance was duly received.
M/s KPMG Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Gurgaon CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 267
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that the Commissioner ( Appeals ) cannot introduce and decide issues beyond the allegations mentioned in the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) during appellate proceedings.
The tribunal observed that the issue of CENVAT credit was never alleged in the SCN and the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to defend itself against this charge. The tribunal ruled that the portion of the impugned order denying CENVAT credit was beyond the jurisdiction.
Piramal Enterprises Pvt Limited vs Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 268
The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the rejection of a service tax refund claim by Piramal Enterprises Pvt. Limited was unjustified and has ordered a fresh adjudication of the matter.
CESTAT noted that “ I do not find any logic in the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is rejecting the refund of service tax paid on serives 3 Appeal No. 12141 of 2016-SM rendered/used in the specified SEZ area. Since the facts of the matter as claimed by the appellant at the time of hearing as well as the report submitted by concerned range Superintendent indicate that majority of value of the services was used for SEZ operations and a smaller amount of Rs. 1.95 Crores was used for DTA unit.
Reliance Stainless Steel vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 269
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to Reliance Stainless Steel and other co-noticees under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS-2019), waiving penalties imposed on them.
The court referred to the Division Bench decision in the Prakash SteelageLtd Vs. C.C.E & S.T- Bharuch, vide Final Order No. 12591-12595/2024, which established that penalties on co-noticees do not survive if the main party’s case has been settled under SVLDRS-2019. The division bench in the above-mentioned case held that ‘we find that as of now it is settled that once the duty demand case is settled under SVLDRS-2019, as perScheme itself, there is a waiver of penalties on the main assessee against whom the demand was confirmed as well as on other co-noticees.’
M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 272
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that telecom towers and shelters qualify as capital goods and observed that Vodafone Idea was entitled to claim cenvat credit.
The Apex Court in the above-mentioned case also observed that ‘there cannot be any doubt that a mobile tower can be treated to be an accessory of antenna and BTS. Accordingly, since in terms of subclause (iii) of Rule 2(a)(A), all components, spares and accessories of such capital goods falling under sub-clause (i) Service Tax Appeal No.504, 1224 & 1257 of 2011 10 would also be treated as capital goods, a mobile tower can also be treated as “capital goods”.’
M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 270
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) allowed Vodafone Idea to avail CENVAT credit on telecom towers and prefabricated buildings (PFBs) as the bench reached the conclusion that these structures qualify as “goods” and can be considered “inputs” under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The bench observed that the definition of “input” under Rule 2(k) is broad and includes any goods used directly or indirectly for providing output services. It noted that telecom towers and PFBs are indispensable for the effective functioning of antennas, which receive and transmit radio signals, making them crucial for delivering mobile telecommunication services.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS vs HAVELLS INDIA LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 274
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that Metal Core Printed Circuit Boards ( MCPCBs ) imported by Havells India Ltd. should be classified under CTH 85340000 as LED components, rejecting the customs department’s claim that they fall under CTH 94054090 as independent lighting fixtures.
The tribunal ruled that MCPCBs are components used in LED lamps but are not independent lighting fixtures themselves. The tribunal explained that Chapter 85 covers printed circuit boards, including those with metal cores, and that Chapter 94 applies only to finished lighting products. MCPCBs require further assembly before they become functional lighting devices, so they cannot be classified under CTH 94054090.
M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs Commissioner of Service Tax-I CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 278
In a recent case, the Mumbai bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the Kotak Mahindra to avail cenvat credit on insurance premium paid under Deposit Insurance and Credit Guaranteed Corporation Act, 1961.
A two member bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) observed that the service rendered by the Deposit Insurance Corporation to the banks would fall in the main part of the definition of “input service”, which is any service used by a provider of output service for providing an output service. Once this service falls in the main part of the definition of “Input service”, it would not be necessary to examine whether the service would be covered by the inclusive part of the definition. It has also been noted that the service is not excluded from the definition of “input service”. While allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the order.
M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 277
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held thatimported raw materials are eligible for basic customs duty exemption on DTA (Domestic Tariff Area) clearance and granted relief to Samsung India Electronics.
The CESTAT relied on the case of Maneta Automotive Components P Ltd. [2015 (328) ELT 620 (T-Del)], in which the court held that ‘if some goods imported into India are fully and unconditionally exempt from Basic Customs Duty by some exemption notification while calculating the Central Excise Duty leviable on the DTA clearances of those goods, the Basic Customs Duty would have to be taken as nil, even if those DTA clearances are not in accordance with the conditions prescribed in para 6.8 of the Foreign Trade Policy.’
M/s. JSW Steels Limited vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 273
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that bank certificates issued by Indian Bank are valid documents for claiming Cenvat credit. This relief to JSW Steels Ltd. and the department’s demand for recovery and penalty were set aside.
A two-member bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) and Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) ruled that bank certificates/statements are valid documents under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules and that Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely for non-production of original invoices.
M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 271
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) granted relief to Tata Chemicals Limited by setting aside a service tax demand imposed by the Commissioner of Service Tax.
The tribunal observed that the services provided by Tata Chemicals were in the nature of BAS and not BSS or BPS. The tribunal also noted that the service recipient, Canpotex, was located outside India, and the services were provided to meet Canpotex’s business needs. The tribunal further held that the payments received by Tata Chemicals from Canpotex were in the nature of discounts or incentives for the purchase of goods, which are not subject to service tax.
M/s Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 275
The Allahabad bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed Eveready Industries India Ltd.’s appeal for a refund of Rs. 15.31 lakh in excise duty, citing the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The case revolved around the company’s claim for a refund of excess excise duty paid on batteries supplied as part of a promotional offer with their Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs).
The bench relied on the decision of Addison & Co. Ltd. [2016 (339) ELT 177 (SC)], in which the apex court held that ‘the doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine. No person can seek to collect the duty from both ends. In other words, he cannot collect the duty from his purchaser at one end and also collect the same duty from the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law.’
M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 277
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) overturned the customs duty demand on Samsung India Electronics as the bench reached the conclusion that Special Additional Customs Duty ( SAD ) exemption is applicable on debonding.
The bench going through various judgments noted that at the time of debonding, the value of raw material cleared has to be valued at the time of importation, and the rate of duty is the effective rate of duty leviable on the imported goods at the time of debonding.
M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited vs Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 276
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that service tax under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, cannot be levied unless there is an express agreement to provide a service for tolerating an act, quashing the Service Tax Demand.
The two-member bench, comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) observed that for an activity to be taxable under Section 66E(e), there must be a clear agreement specifying a consideration for tolerating an act, which was absent in this case. The tribunal also observed that penalties and forfeitures serve as deterrents and are not intended as consideration for service.
M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Commissioner of Service Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 283
In a recent case, the Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Hindustan Unilever Ltd is eligible to avail 75% of abatement on freight paid to GTA . It was observed that the appellant had availed the abatement during the period from February 2005 to February 2006 while the Show Cause Notice was issued on 30.03.2010, which is beyond the normal period of limitation.
Further, M.F.(D.R.) Letter F. No. B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27.07.2005 has clarified that “An abatement of 75% in taxable service of goods transport by road is available on the condition that the goods transport agency has not availed credit on inputs and capital goods used for providing taxable service and has also not availed benefit of notification No. 12/2003-Service Tax, dated 20-62003 (vide Notification No. 32/2004-Service Tax, dated 3-12-2004). It has been requested that in cases where liability for tax payment is on the consignor or con-signee, the procedure as to how it should be confirmed by such consignor or consignee that the goods transport agency has not availed credit or benefit of notification No. 12/2003Service Tax may be prescribed. In such cases it is clarified that a declaration by the goods transport agency in the consignment note issued, to the effect that neither credit on inputs or capital goods used for provision of service has been taken nor the benefit of notification No. 12/2003-Service Tax has been taken by them may suffice for the purpose of availment of abatement by the person liable to pay service tax.”
Standard Chartered Bank vs Commissioner of CGST & CX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 282
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that the mere allocation of expenses from Standard Chartered Bank UK (SCB-UK) to its Indian branch (SCB-India) does not constitute a taxable service under the reverse charge mechanism unless a clear service provider-service recipient relationship is established.
A two-member bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) observed that the mere allocation of expenses, without a contractual obligation, service agreement, or direct payment, did not establish a service provider-service recipient relationship. The tribunal observed that the reverse charge mechanism applies only when services are explicitly provided, and consideration is exchanged.
M/s Dish TV India Limited vs Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 281
In a case in favour of Dish TV India Limited, the Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) no reversal of cenvat credit under rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules ( CCR ), 2004 on removal of inputs to premises of job worker.
While investigating into the matter of alleged wrongful availment and non-payment of Cenvat Credit amount on the Smart-Cards, the department had recorded the statements under summons from various officers employed by the appellants. Based on detailed investigation, the department had issued the Show Cause Notice(SCN) dated 11.01.2019, calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why the Cenvat Credit demand amounting to Rs.42,19,49,134/- along with interest shall not be confirmed and recovered under Rule 14 of the Rules of 2004 read with the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The SCN also proposed for imposition of penalty under Section 78 ibid. The period involved in the said SCN was from January 2014 to June 2017. The SCN has basically been alleged that the appellants had removed the Smart-Cards ‘as such’, from their premises and thus, the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Rules of 2004 have been contravened for non-reversal of Cenvat Credit attributable to the Smart-Cards.
The Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/s. Mercedes Benz Research and Development India (P) Ltd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 284
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the Cenvat Credit refund to Mercedes Benz Research and Development India (P) Ltd. The bench found that the services including the ‘Technical Consultancy Service’ and ‘Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services’ are having direct nexus with the output services and sanctioned refund of cenvat credit.
As regarding ‘Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services’, it is used by the Engineering Service Department for Finite Element Modelling to carry out virtual testing of designs of cars or trucks on the computer using commercially available software packages. The said services is also directedly used for software development as required by the customer of the assessee. The CA further submitted that only after considering the nexus between the input services and output services, the adjudicating authority partially allowed the claim of the assessee vide Order-in-Original No.249/2009-ST dated 19.06.2009.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
