Annual Customs, Excise and Service Tax Case Digest: CESTAT Rulings 2025 (Part 1)

This article summarises all CESTAT orders published in the Taxscan.in.

Loading Activities in Mining Area does not Qualify as Cargo Handling Services: CESTAT

M/s. Shree MohangarhSharmik Theka Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central GST

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 101

In this case, the appellant, M/s. Shree Mohangarh Sharmik Theka Sahkari Samiti Ltd. had challenged the order passed by the commissioner ( Appeals ) which had upheld a service tax demand of Rs. 12,19,348 under the category of "Cargo Handling Services."

The CESEAT referred to the Mines Act, 1952 wherein it covered the process of extraction of ores from mines washing, screening, crushing in the crushing plant and stacking at the mining site. In reference to the Mines Act, the CESEAT used the precedent set in Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and reiterated that the demand of loading at a mining site and railway siding cannot be taxed under “Cargo Handling Services”.

The CESTAT, comprising Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.

CESTAT sets aside Penalty as Amnesty Scheme does not Prescribe Penalties for Settled Cases, Citing Closure Letter issued after Compliance

M/s.Makwuds India Private Limited vs The Commissioner of Customs

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 102

Makwuds India Private Limited, the appellant, is a company that imported goods under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme and availed duty exemptions from a notification dated 17.09.2004.

In 2023, the appellant availed an Amnesty Scheme for settling defaults in export obligations. Following this scheme, the appellant paid the entire customs duty including interest. The Deputy Director-General of Foreign Trade then issued a Final Duty Paid Regularization letter dated 01.04.2024, confirming the closure of the case.

The two-member bench comprising P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) observed that the scheme was to resolve defaults in export obligations without treating them as irregularities or implying malafide intent. The bench observed that the closure letter issued by the authorities showed full compliance with the scheme and no penalty was prescribed in the Amnesty Scheme.

Failure to Prove Service of Order: CESTAT Sets Aside Commissioner (Appeals)'s Time-Barred Dismissal, Remands Matter

M/s. Subham Minerals & Chemicals vs Commissioner of CentralExcise & Respondent Central Goods & Service Tax

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 103

The appellant approached the CESTAT arguing that they never received the order-in-original and only became aware of it upon receiving a recovery notice dated April 29, 2015, which they received on May 12, 2015.

While the opposing counsel argued that the order had been dispatched and recorded in the dispatch register, claiming it to be sufficient to establish service - the appellant counsel relied on a Rajasthan High Court ruling as per R. P. Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. CESTAT, where a delay of 10 years was excused due to lack of evidence of delivery.

The tribunal held that rejecting the appeal on the grounds of delay without verifying service compliance was erroneous. So, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merits. The appellant’s appeal was allowed.

Mis-declaration to DGFT does not fall within the purview of S. 114AA of the Customs Act: CESTAT

S.B. AGARWAL vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 104

The Commissioner of Customs observed that the misdeclaration in applications to DGFT invalidated the licenses obtained under the EPCG scheme. Consequently, duties were demanded along with interest, redemption fines were imposed, and personal penalties under Section 114AA were levied against the individuals, including S.B. Agarwal.

A jurisdiction issue was raised in a related Supreme Court proceeding, after its clarification, the matter was heard and decided afresh.

The CESTAT observed that Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 penalizes false declarations made knowingly or intentionally in proceedings under the Customs Act. It held that the alleged misdeclaration by the appellant to DGFT was not a declaration in a proceeding under the Customs Act but instead under the Foreign Trade Policy and thus, the section was inapplicable.

AO Insisting Importer Opting for Classification proposed by investigating agency is contrary to prescription of self-assessment S. 17 of Customs Act: CESTAT

Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 105

M/s Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt Ltd's appeals concern the appropriateness of "split air conditioners incorporating refrigerating units with dual function (cooling and heating)," for which the aforementioned exemption was not available as the correct classification. This is because of numerous assessments in bill of entry filed between October 21, 2023, and February 29, 2014, in which the claim for rate of duty corresponding to tariff item 8415 1010 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with attendant benefit of notification was revised to duty liability appropriate to tariff item 8415 8210 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

It is clear that the issue stems from the July 2013 investigations that resulted in reclassification of imports between 2009-10 and 2013-14. It also looks like the assessing authorities have been adopting the classifications as suggested by the investigating agency since the investigations began in 2013.

A two-member bench Mr C J Mathew, Member (Technical) and Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) viewed that an assessing officer may choose to be guided by the proposals of the investigating agency is not surprising but that an assessing officer should insist upon the importer opting for classification as proposed by the investigating agency, which is inappropriate. It runs contrary to the prescription of self-assessment and orders of reassessment in Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Dept must Automatically Return EDD upon Finalizing Provisional Assessment without Requiring Refund Application: CESTAT

Herrenknecht India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 106

Aggrieved by the Commissioner’s order, the appellant approached the CESTAT. The appellant argued that the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) was a security deposit and not a tax, so it does not attract limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The counsel explained that as per judicial precedents and CBEC Circular No. 5/2016 such deposits must be refunded post-final assessment without requiring a formal claim.

A report surfaced by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) in 2018 which confirmed that transactions were not influenced by supplier-buyer relations. Further, in Madras HC, Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai v. Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd. held that refunds of EDD do not require a formal claim.

The tribunal ruled that the department was obligated to refund the EDD after the final assessment and rejected the impugned order. For the Bills of Entry (BOE) missing the TR6 challan, the tribunal directed the department to process the refund upon submission of an indemnity bond, as per departmental procedure. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Refund for Unutilized CENVAT Credit Rejected Over Lack of Input-output Nexus: CESTAT Partially Remands Matter for Further Document Submission

M/s AMD Research &Development Vs Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 107

The revenue department processed the claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and rejected certain amounts on various grounds including lack of nexus between input and output services, procedural lapses such as invoices from unregistered premises, and errors in refund computation. Aggrieved by these rejections, the appellant filed appeals before the CESTAT.

The tribunal observed that there was sufficient nexus between input-output services of the appellant. Judicial precedents such as HCL Technologies Ltd. v. CCE, Noida and Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. CCE were referred to and referenced in arguments. Further, it remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of procedure and for recalculation of eligible funds.

The tribunal directed a reassessment of Rs. 39,20,942 based on rules and additional documentation. The appellant's claims were partially upheld.

CESTAT restores Suspended License of CHA in absence of Proof for Violation of CBLR

M/s.V.J.P. Shipping India Pvt. Limited vs The Commissioner ofCustoms 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 108

M/s.V.J.P. Shipping India Pvt. Limited, M/s.K.Y.P. Logistics India Pvt. Limited, the appellants filed the appeal against Order by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Chennai Custom House, Chennai, whereby the Principal Commissioner has ordered the “continuation of suspension of license issued under Regulation 16 (2) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations ( CBLR ), 2018”.

The Tribunal was of the opinion that the appellants cannot be left remedy-less because of inaction due to reasons private to Revenue Dept. It further states that the Customs House Agent (CHA) may have a meritorious argument since the time-frame has not been adhered to by the authorities, but the same is not true for the Appeal.

A two member bench of P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) set aside the order suspending the license of the appellants. The authority below can always go ahead since there has been an initiation of a proceedings, and conclude the same in accordance with law thereafter.

CESTAT upholds Service Tax Demands: Extended Limitation u/s 73 Invoked for Misrepresentation under RCM on Foreign Services and Sponsorship

M/s Kriti Nutrients Limited vs Commissioner (Appeals) CGST &Cx 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 109

The assessee, M/s Kriti Nutrients Ltd, appealed against the tax demands made by the commissioner, which included liabilities related to the director’s sitting fees, foreign testing services, legal consultancy and sponsorships. The tax department had issued a show cause notice (SCN) for non-compliance observed during the records assessment of the 2014-15 assessment year(AY), which included the addition of interest and penalties under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).

The tax department claimed that the assessee failed to prove exemptions, making the testing services taxable under RCM based on the Place of Provision Rules, 2012. Furthermore, the fact that no evidence was presented to exclude stamp charges from legal consultancy, makes all payments including notary charges, taxable. Finally, the extended limitation period was justified for partial payments and misrepresentation.

On hearing both sides, the CESTAT upheld the assessee’s liability of ₹1236 on the director’s sitting fee and the testing and certification services; the tribunal held that no evidence had been found supporting the assessee’s claim that such services were non-taxable. It upheld the tax demand of ₹1,69,771, citing Rule 4(a) of the Place of Provision Rules, 2012. Regarding legal consultancy services, the tribunal rejected the appellant’s argument that notary charges and stamp purchases were non-taxable as the amounts were not adequately broken down. Therefore, the service tax demand of ₹5,020 was valid. As for the sponsorship services, the tribunal held that the cookery event provided direct commercial benefits to the assessee.

CESTAT sets aside Customs Broker Licence Revocation and Penalty concerning Export Overvaluation Dispute

Rupali Logistics Clearing & Forwarding P Ltd vs PrincipalCommissioner of Customs (General)

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 110

The Principal Commissioner had earlier revoked the appellant’s Customs Broker Licence, forfeited their security deposit, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under regulations 14 and 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 ( CBLR ) as it was observed by the Commissioner that the broker failed to exercise due diligence, leading to the misuse of export drawback schemes through overvaluation. The Principal Commissioner observed that the export transactions were supported by fabricated purchase bills and fictitious buyers.

The appellant had argued that they had not violated any regulations as the term ‘exporter’ under the Customs Act, 1962 includes beneficial owners. As they had ensured that this exporter existed and operated at the declared address, they had compiled with the regulations.

The CESTAT, comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C. J. Mathew (Technical Member) set aside the impugned order.

CESTAT sets aside Appeal against Air Asia on Issue of Customs Duty Refund citing Payment of Duty under Protest

M/s. Air Asia (India) Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 112

The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected all these appeals on the ground that the appellant, Air Asia (India) Private Limited had not complied with the provisions of Section 129E ofthe Customs Act, 1962 by depositing 7.5% of the duty or penalty disputed.

According to the two-member bench, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the matter on merit and has dismissed the appeals based only on the fact that they have failed to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the duty.

The CESTAT set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh on merit after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and allowed the appeal.

Discount claim under Excise Duty stating Written off of Value in Books of Account: CESTAT sets aside Demand of Excise Duty on Value of Goods Mentioned in Price List

M/s Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner ofCentral Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 113

The department had proceeded against the appellants on the ground that, in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(5B) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellants were required to reverse the CENVAT Credit attributable to inputs, which were availed as CENVAT Credit during the time, those were received in the factory.

The appellants had discharged the central excise duty on the net value of the goods, but the department has objected to this payment as it was paid on a lesser value.

A two member bench of S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and M.M. Parthiban, Member (Technical) observed that the impugned order is not valid insofar as it has confirmed the adjudged demands on the appellants on the ground that they should be liable to pay additional central excise duty on the gross amount of the value of the goods mentioned in the price list. While allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the impugned order.

Determination of Assessable value as per Rule 9 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules not Applicable on Independent seller: CESTAT

Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax VS Fie Spherotech 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 114

The department had alleged that determination of assessable value under Section 4 of the Act of 1944 is not proper and correct, and the assessable value should have been determined under Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. On the basis of such allegation, show cause proceedings were initiated by the department, seeking for recovery of the differential amount of duty in respect of the finished goods cleared to the related persons.

On a detailed examination by the two-member bench, it was found that since Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 provides statutory provisions applicable only when the goods are supplies exclusively to the related persons and not as much as to independent buyers.

The tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority in support of dropping the show cause proceedings initiated against the respondents. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Value of material supplied for providing Taxable Services cannot be included in Value of Taxable services: CESTAT

M/s Vividh Landscape Consultants (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner ofCentral Excise & Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 115

Appellants were providing Landscaping Services classifiable under the category of Interior Decorator Services under erstwhile Section 65 (59) of the Finance Act, 1994 upto 30 June, 2012. This service qualifies as taxable service. The appellant suppressed the figures of gross receipts of landscape development services and cleaning services during the concerned period by entering into two kind of agreements with their customers, one for developing landscape; and other for the maintenance of the same.

When the landscape development contract was consolidated, they excluded the value of grass, plant and other integral material to be considered as inputs. It is obvious that the contract did not mention sale and purchase of materials. Further, they evaded payment of service by excluding consultancy given for interior decoration.

It was decided that value of the material supplied while providing the taxable services cannot be included in the value of taxable services, even if the material is consumed for providing the taxable service. The tribunal set aside the demand of service tax along with the penalties.

Duty Exemption certificate cannot be invalidated as delay occurred in applying before Ministry: CESTAT upholds Amendment of Bill of Entry u/s 149 of Customs Act

Commissioner of Customs, Noida vs s Industrial Foams Pvt. Ltd 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 116

In his application dated November 15, 2021, the respondent requested a tariff exemption certificate from the Ministry of Environment and Forests for future imports that he would make. After submitting this request, he imported the contested goods and submitted Bill of Entry No. 7704341 on March 02, 2022, for the import consignment to be cleared. However, because the Ministry of Environment and Forest took a while to issue the disputed duty exemption certificate, he did not immediately clear the contested goods and instead allowed them to remain at the port for a while. Later on, to avoid any demurrage charges, he cleared the goods on 14 March, 2022 on payment of the required self assessed duty in absence of the said certificate.

Applying the benefit of exemption from doctrine of substantial compliance, due to the submission of the application and the receipt, it is seen that the respondent had applied well in advance for duty exemption certificate from the date of importation. Moreover, following the receipt of the certificate, they requested that the Bill of Entry be modified in accordance with Section 149 of Customs Act.

Even the submission of that application and receipt of it can be regarded as a valid document for the purpose of allowing the benefit of exemption in terms of Doctrine of Substantial Compliance. This was determined by a two-member bench consisting of P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial), and Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical). The respondents had taken all the necessary steps to obtain the said certificate well in advance, which was causing delays in the concerned ministry. The desired amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act of 1962 ought to have been granted.

Demanding Tax which has already been paid by Service Recipient would lead to Double Taxation: CESTAT

Shri Ballar Singh VS Commissioner, Central GST & CentralExcise, Lucknow 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 117

The Govt. of Uttar Pradesh has awarded water proofing work of Govt. buildings to M/S UPRNN Ltd who in turn sub contracted the same to the party The principal contractor, MIS UPRNN Lid has already discharged tax liability on the entire value of services including that which has been sub contracted to the party. The party has produced documentary evidence in this regard as referred above in view of above facts, the party would not be liable for any further payment of service lax on the value of services on water proofing work which has already suffered service tax. Further payment of service tax on the same value of services relating to the same set of services has not been any legislative intention under Finance Act 1994.

Since the Principal Commissioner had disclosed the taxable income and the exempted services for the relevant period, the department cannot urge that there was suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax.

A single bench of P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) observed that at the relevant time there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal regarding payment of service tax by a sub-contractor or a sub-consultant and it is only when the Larger Bench decided the issue on May 23, 2019 that it was settled that a sub-contractor would have to discharge the service tax liability even if the main contractor had discharged the service tax liability.

Dept Empowered to Recover Escaped Customs Duty for Non-Compliance with Post-Importation Conditions in Exemption Notification: CESTAT

M/s. Pentafour Solec Technologies Ltd. vs Commissioner ofCustoms 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 118

Pentafour Solec Technologies Ltd., the appellant, imported capital goods valued at Rs. 20,01,60,280 in 1997 under the zero-duty Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme. The company was obligated to fulfill certain export obligations under the scheme.

Due to the violations of the EPCG scheme, the confiscation and imposition of penalties were held by the tribunal. Further, violations under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act made the revenue counsel’s argument clearer.

The tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, explaining that the physical availability of goods is not necessary for imposing redemption fines. Penalties were deemed reasonable considering the company’s violations and the involvement of its officials. The appeal was dismissed.

CENVAT Credit cannot be Denied for procedural lapses if substantial compliance is met: CESTAT Sets aside Reversal of Rs. 16.12 Lakhs

National Engineering Industries Limited vs Commissioner, CGSTAnd Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 119

In this case, the department issued a show-cause notice issued to the appellant, challenging the eligibility of Cenvat credit claimed.

The tribunal relied on judicial precedents which also held that procedural errors should not undermine a taxpayer’s rights.

The CESTAT observed that the department's denial of the Rs. 16.12 lakh credit was due to a minor procedural issue, which is the incorrect address mentioned on the invoices.

Service Recipient Liable for 100% Tax on Imports from Non-Taxable Territory: CESTAT quashes Demand, cites Recipient's Paid Tax already

M/s. UTStarcom Inc. vs Commissioner of Service Tax - Delhi IV 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 120

UTStarcom Inc. (India Branch), the appellant, is a branch of UTStarcom Inc. USA, engaged in providing marketing and support services. During an audit, the department observed alleged short-payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 27,64,350 for services deemed imported by UTStarcom Inc. (India Branch). The department issued a show cause notice (SCN) demanding recovery of the tax, along with interest and penalties.

The main argument put forth by the appellant side was that the relevant details and facts of the case were incorrectly understood and thus, making the demand unreasonable.

The tribunal held that the demand against the appellant was invalid as service tax liability had already been discharged and the SCN was time-barred. The appeal was allowed and the demand was set aside.

Refund for Unutilized CENVAT Credit Rejected without Proper Notice: CESTAT Orders Re-Examination Citing Violation of Natural Justice

M/s. Mylan Laboratories Limited vs Commissioner of GST &Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 121

On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund claims for CENVAT credit reasons such as the absence of valid documents, ineligible services, improper service tax documents, and time-barred claims. Aggrieved by the Commissioner’s order, the appellant approached the CESTAT.

The tribunal agreed with the appellant’s argument that the rejection had violated the principles of natural justice. Additionally, it was argued that the documents that had been attached by the appellant side had been ignored by the adjudicating authorities and appellate authorities before the tribunal.

The two-member bench comprising Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) observed that the authorities had not adhered to the principles of natural justice. The tribunal explained that refund applicants must be allowed to present deficiencies and that rejecting claims without issuing show-cause notices or specifying missing documents was procedurally flawed.

Teflon Coating, Mat Fixing and Accessory fitting before 01.07.2012 not liable to Service Tax: CESTAT

AVG Motors Ltd VS Commissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 122

The appellant counsel submitted that if modifications are made when the vehicles are rolled out of the showroom then the cost of the material and service charges for the intended services are duly collected from the customer.

In previous decisions, it had been discussed that additional services such as Teflon Coating, Mat Fixing and Accessory fitting would not be liable subjects for tax scrutiny for the period prior to 01.07.2012.

The Bench attested to the Appellant’s submissions that the Adjudicating Authority had not considered the submissions raised by the assessee and confirmed the demand prejudicially. The appeal was allowed in part and remanded to reconsider the demand of service tax after due consideration of the details furnished by the Appellant.

Proceedings must be initiated on ISD in allegation of wrong distribution of Cenvat credit by ISD: CESTAT rules in favour of Berger Paints

M/s Berger Paints India Ltd VS Commissioner of Central Excise,Noida-II 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 123

In a ruling in favour of Berger Paints India Ltd, the Allahabad Bench of the CESTAT held that where the allegation is of wrong distribution of Cenvat credit, proceedings must be initiated against the Input Service Distributor (ISD) and not against the recipient manufacturing unit. The Tribunal observed that Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules governs the manner of distribution by the ISD, and any alleged violation has to be examined at the ISD’s end. In the present case, the Head Office at New Delhi was duly registered as an ISD, and the jurisdictional officer over the ISD had never objected to the distribution methodology. Therefore, the Commissioner’s order denying credit at the recipient unit’s end was held to be without jurisdiction and contrary to settled law.

The Tribunal also found serious violations of natural justice, noting that the adjudicating authority demanded reconciliation data for nearly ten years within one week and proceeded to decide the case without granting reasonable time. On merits, it held that the Jammu unit was not an exempted unit (operating under Notification No. 56/2002-CE) and that proportionate distribution of credit had been followed, duly certified by a Chartered Accountant. For the period from April 2012 onwards, no ineligible credit was found to have been availed. Accordingly, CESTAT set aside the demand of Cenvat credit along with interest and penalties, reiterating that alleged wrong distribution by an ISD cannot be questioned at the recipient unit’s end.

Availment of excess credit without documents prescribed u/r 9(1) of CCR: CESTAT Directs to Accept Documents submitted belatedly by Nippon Steel

Nippon Steel Chemical and Material India Pvt. Ltd. vsCommissioner of GST & Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 124

The appellant M/s Nippon Steel Chemical & Material India Private Limited, is a subsidiary of Nippon Steel Chemical & Material Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan, manufacturing parts of metal substrate and availing CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and service tax inputs. During the course of audit, it was found that the appellant had availed excess credit of Rs.5,48,147/- without any documents prescribed in Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Factors such as outsourced agencies for accounting, untraceable bills, failure to identify why there was a difference found by the department officer, COVID and various disturbances in service all contribute to the reason why CENVAT credit could not be addressed in the timeline.

The tribunal remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for de novo consideration. The Original Authority shall follow the principles of natural justice and afford a reasonable and time bound opportunity to the appellant to state their case both orally and in writing along with documents, if they so wish, before issuing a speaking order in the matter. The appellant should also co-operate with the Original Authority in completing the process expeditiously and in any case within ninety days of receipt of this order.

CESTAT remands Issue on Exclusions made for Determining ‘Export Turnover on the Services’ applying Formula A, Rules in favour of HSBC Electronic

HSBC Electronic Data Processing vs Commissioner of Central TaxRangareddy - GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 125

The short question is whether certain exclusions made by the original sanctioning authority for calculating ‘export turnover of services’ are correct or otherwise. These services are intermediary services, viz., outbound call centre services and reimbursement in the nature of foreign exchange received towards services provided to foreign personnel who visit India.

For the purposes of determining the ‘export turnover of the services’, Formula A is applied to exclude certain services and foreign reimbursements, the appellant plead the case that the formula adopted was not correct.

While allowing the appeal by way of remand, the tribunal also made clear that as a consequence of this exercise, there will not be any additional payment of refund.

Burden of Proof Lies on Customs Dept to prove Allegation of Country of Origin for ADD: CESTAT drops ADD Demand on Unmarked Pallets

C.C.-Ahmedabad VS Vinayak Steel Impex 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 126

The Customs Department appealed before the CESTAT arguing that the respondent’s misdeclaration placed the burden on the importer to prove the non-Taiwanese origin of the unmarked pallets. The department also claimed that the importer must rebut allegations made in the show cause notice.

It had been observed through the case in question, that statutory consequences of misdirection had already been imposed and no legal or factual basis existed to presume origin for unmarked pallets, especially when other pallets were marked with different origins.

The tribunal also clarified that the principle of "the one who asserts must prove" applied in such cases and the department could not sustain ADD on the unmarked pallets without concrete evidence. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s order and the department's appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Services like Construction of Road, Bridge rendered to Government exempted from Tax: CESTAT quashes Demand Order

M/s. Koleshwari InfraconsPrivate Limited vs Commissioner(Audit), Central G.S.T. & C.X 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 127

The Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax on construction of road, bridge along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the commissioner, an appeal was filed before CESTAT.

Keeping in light that the counsel for the appellant did not receive notice before personal hearing and that the commissioner did not give enough reason to reject a report, the tribunal quashed the demand order.

The tribunal also remanded back to the commissioner for examination of the claim made by the appellant and directed to give proper opportunity to the appellant. Thus the appeal was allowed.

Dept Denies CENVAT Credit u/r 4 of CCR: CESTAT Confirms Eligibility Citing Complete Details Available in Bills/Invoices u/r 9(2)

Saraf Services Private Limited vs Commissioner of Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 128

Saraf Services Pvt Ltd (appellant) is engaged in a business that includes maintenance and repair services, business auxiliary services, and renting immovable property services. The appellant did not pay service tax which was found in the balance sheet and profit and loss account during the audit.

The appellant side argued that they had fulfilled the criteria for eligibility for CENVAT credit and thus were in no contravention of Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The tribunal verified the bills/ invoices and held that they contained details in terms of Rule 9(2) of CCR, 2004. Therefore, the tribunal held that there was no contravention of Rule 4(7) of CCR, 2004. The tribunal held that the appellant has rightly availed the CENVAT Credit. The appeal of the appellant was allowed.

Deposit made 'Under Protest' without SCN cannot be Barred by Unjust Enrichment u/s 11B of Central Excise: CESTAT allows Refund

Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. vs Commissioner, CentralGoods & Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 129

The adjudicating authority granted refund to the appellants but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision holding that the deposit was accounted as an expenditure in financial statements, implying that the duty burden had been passed to customers. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the CESTAT.

The bench observed that deposits made “under protest” during adjudication or investigation cannot be construed as duty payments under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellant counsel also argued for the deposits to not be subjects to unjust enrichment, which the bench and tribunal concurred with.

The tribunal referenced the Karnataka High Court ruling in Commissioner v. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd., which held that such deposits cannot be treated as duty payments. The tribunal restored the adjudicating authority's decision allowing the refund claim and providing consequential relief to the appellant. The appeal was allowed.

No Additional Customs Duty on High Speed Diesel Importers under DEEC Scheme: CESTAT

Flexi Tuff International Limited vs Commissioner of Customs,Kandla 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 130

Notification No.43/2022-Cus dated 19.04.2002 provides exemptions on customs duty, additional duty, safeguard duty and anti-dumping duty on materials imported into India against an advance license issued in terms of sub-paras (a) and (b) of paragraph 4.1.1 of the Export and Import Policy.

Since Flexi Tuff was granted advance licence, it enabled them to import raw materials with customs duty exemptions. The counsel for appellants also used the precedent in Atlantic Shipping Pvt. Limited. v. Commissioner of Customs (2019) to further his arguments.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs - Kandla, and ruled in favor of Flexi Tuff, reaffirming that exemptions granted under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus shall include additional customs duties levied by Section 116 of the Finance Act, 1999.

Penalty u/s 114AA imposed alleging Aircraft Imported for Directors’ private use: CESTAT deletes Penalty finding No False Declaration

Commissioner of Customs VS Shri Sarang Wadhawan 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 131

The Customs Department argued that the import conditions were violated and imposed penalties under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The department alleged that Wahawan had signed a false undertaking at importation. An appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) ordered the penalties be dropped upon Sarang Wadhawan, stating that though the assessee may have signed the undertaking at the time of importation of the aircraft declaring it to be used for providing non-scheduled operator (passenger) services and that it cannot be said that the undertaking given by him was false or incorrect.

Section 114AA clearly states that if a person knowingly signs any document which is false or incorrect in any material particular in the transaction of any business for the Act, the person would be liable to pay a penalty. Since the aircraft was supposedly a passenger aircraft in the eyes of the signee, then it cannot be said that the respondent had knowingly signed it to be a false document.

The two-member bench of CESTAT, which consisted of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V Subba Rao (Technical Member), held no merit in the appeal. As a result, the appeal made by the customs department was dismissed.

Lack of Evidence and Section 11A(4) Misuse: CESTAT quashes ₹2.81 Cr Rule 6(3) Demand over Alleged Common Input Service Usage

M/s Shree Radhey Radhey Ispat (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner ofCentral Excise & CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 132

The appellant, Shree Radhey Radhey Ispat Pvt Ltd, engaged in manufacturing and trading activities made use of Central Value Added Tax CENVAT credit on input services at its manufacturing unit in Fatehpur. The Revenue alleged that the appellant also provided exempted services (trading) without maintaining separate bank accounts as required under Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. It argued that the appellant failed to pay 6% of the value of exempted services, calculated as ₹2.81 Crore for the Financial years 2012-13 to 2015-16.

The appellant moved the court to CESTAT contending that trading activities were conducted from an entirely different location in Kanpur, distinct from the manufacturing unit in Fatehpur. Further, separate accounts for trading were accounted for as shown in VAT assessment orders and various invoices.

The CESTAT, on examining both submissions, held that the SCN and the order failed to establish the use of standard input services for trading and manufacturing. The adjudicating authority had not considered key documents, including VAT orders and freight invoices, which showed the distinction of activities between the Kanpur and Fatehpur entities.

Failure to File Transshipment Bill Deemed a Technical Lapse: CESTAT overturns Duty Demand and Penalties as unjustified

Anshu Sahay vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 133

JM Baxi & Co, the appellant, acted as an agent for salvaging operations of MSC Chitra, a vessel involved in an oil spill near Mumbai in 2010. The appellant facilitated the import and transfer of salvage equipment for use in the operation, which was claimed to qualify as "stores" for a foreign-going vessel under the Customs Act, 1962.

While the Customs authorities stated that the goods were neither exempt from duty nor exported, Customs demanded duties along with penalties as per the violations under Sections 111 and 114 of the Customs Act. The appellant then submitted evidence including certifications from Salvage Master to record that deployment of the goods were done in a salvage operation.

The tribunal observed that the goods were used for salvaging a vessel in distress, and their classification as "stores" was consistent with the legislative intent of the Customs Act. The tribunal held that imposing duty demands and penalties in this matter lacked merit and legal basis. The tribunal set aside the orders imposing duties and penalties. The appeal was allowed.

Dept denies Exemption for Wrongful CENVAT Credit use on Exempted Goods: CESTAT grants Relief as Excess Credit was reversed before SCN

M/s. UMC Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 134

The department issued a show cause notice stating that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions to avail of exemption under notifications and also to deny Small Scale Industries (SSI) benefits. On adjudication, the department denied the exemption of notification and also the benefit of SSI. Aggrieved by the order of the department, an appeal was filed by the appellant before CESTAT.

The counsel the appellant made the argument that the department had failed to consider the reversal of the wrong CENVAT credit which allowed goods to be cleared without payment of duty.

The appeal of the appellant was allowed.

No Violation of Export Procedures: CESTAT sets aside Penalty Imposed on Shipping Agent u/s 114 of the Customs Act

M/s. Samudera Shipping Line (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner ofCustoms (Port) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 135

The revenue was of the opinion that the appellant had not followed proper procedures and had exported goods for which the Let Export Order (LEO) had been canceled and due to which it imposed a penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The counsel for the appellant presented the argument that since the actual export had taken place and included the transaction of foreign remittance, therefore no specific case can be made out against themselves.

It was observed by the tribunal that the fact that the consignment was finally exported shows that at some point or the other, the customs officials would have signed the LEO allowing the consignment to be exported out of India.

Tyres Without BIS Markings Liable for Confiscation u/s 111 of Customs Act: CESTAT

M/s. Sai Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 136

The appellant made an import of 3,066 tyres, declared "Off the Road Tyres," which were later found to be passenger car radial and commercial truck tyres without mandatory BIS certifications.

As had been already expressed by the adjudicating authority, absolute confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act can be made due to misdeclaration, violation of import norms, and public safety concerns.

The tribunal held that the goods (tyres) imported by the appellant without any BIS markings being in violation of the statutory provisions are not permissible to be imported, and hence they are liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act.

CESTAT upholds Duty Valuation under Rule 10A, Rejects Vehicle Manufacturer's appeal on Refund Claim

M/s SML ISUZU Ltd vs The Commissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 137

The appellants argued that filing a refund claim by the body-builders does not affect their right to claim a refund. They contended that body-builders are not liable to pay duty under Rule 10A, and the duty paid by job-workers was borne by them. The appellants stated that the transaction with bodybuilders does not constitute a sale, as there was no tripartite agreement or manufacturing on their behalf. They claimed the body-built vehicles are accessible under Section 4(1)(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, making them eligible for a refund and interest.

The bench, after hearing both sides, concluded that the work entrusted to the firms involved body fabrication and mounting on chassis supplied free of cost by the manufacturer. This makes the activity fall under Rule 10A for valuation purposes, and not Rule 6.

The CESTAT held that the valuation of the goods in the impugned case is to be made in terms of Rule 10A of CEVR 2000 and upheld the impugned order.

Undervaluation of LG TV Panels in Import BoE: CESTAT Remands matter for verifying Customs Import Data

M/s. Param Electronics vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 138

It came to the notice of the Authorities and they were of the opinion that the Appellant had illicitly undervalued the goods, taking into account contemporaneous import data. The Authorities further discovered that the Importer had misquoted the quantity of goods, having imported 3 pieces more than specified in the BoE; consequently, all the goods were seized for investigation.

In a statement dated 14.12.2018, Prem Narayan Gupta, from the appellant company, agreed to pay requisite duty as per the pricing by LG for their imported panels.

The tribunal noted that the Appellant had imported both ‘LG Brand’ panels as well as unbranded panels, the CESTAT Bench remanded the matter to the original authority to consider the contemporaneous import data adduced by the Appellant and to authenticate the relevance of the records and decide the matter in accordance with law.

No Service Tax Exemption available to Subcontractor for activity of Site formation for Construction of Dam on Post Negative List Regime: CESTAT

Capital Housing Projects Pvt Ltd vs Principal Commissioner ofCentral Tax Guntur - GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 139

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)held that service tax exemption is not available to subcontractors providing site formation services for dam construction in the post–negative list regime. The Tribunal rejected the claim of Capital Housing Projects Pvt Ltd, which had undertaken earthwork, drilling, blasting, excavation and leveling activities as a subcontractor at the Polavaram project, that it was entitled to exemption under S. No. 12(d) or S. No. 29(h) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. It held that the services were rendered to a private contractor and not directly to the Government, and that site formation activities are not covered under the expression “by way of construction” of a dam under the exemption notification.

The Tribunal found that the appellant’s activities were site formation services, distinct from works contract services, as there was no transfer of property in goods and no VAT payment to qualify as a works contract. While such activities were specifically exempted prior to 2012, no similar exemption exists under the post–negative list regime. The Bench held that a strict interpretation of the notification was required and any ambiguity would favour the Revenue. Accordingly, CESTAT upheld the denial of exemption under both entries, sustained the invocation of the extended period on grounds of suppression detected during DGGI investigation, and affirmed the service tax demand of ₹2.05 crore along with interest and penalty.

Relief to Berger Paints: CESTAT quashes ₹6.12 Crore Demand for Alleged Misallocation, Confirms Proportionate Distribution Citing CA Certificate

M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 140

Berger Paints India Ltd., the appellant, manufactures paints with units at Sikandrabad, Surajpur, and Jammu. The appellant’s Head Office in New Delhi registered as an ISD, distributed CENVAT credit to its manufacturing units, including the Sikandrabad unit, which was the subject of dispute.

The main argument that the appellant rested the case on was that according to Rule 7, proportional distribution was not mandated prior to 2012 and 2014. After the amendments in ‘12 and ‘14, proportional distribution of credits were recorded by reconciliation teams. Further, the Chartered Accountant’s certification also has shown proportional distribution.

The tribunal observed that no evidence supported the claim of wrongful credit distribution after April 2012. The tribunal explained that extended demand periods require proof of intent to evade taxes which was not in this case. The tribunal set aside demand, and penalties and allowed the appeal.

Leviability of Service tax on renting/leasing immovable properties for commercial purposes : CESTAT directs to pass denovo order

The Commissioner vs Commissioner of GST & Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 141

The Commissioner, Theni-Allinagaram Municipality (the ‘Appellant’) has filed this appeal which is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 272/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex. (Appeals), Madurai. The Appellant is renting / leasing out their own immovable properties for commercial purposes which is taxable under the category of ‘Renting of Immovable Property service’ under the Finance Act, 1994 but the Appellant had not registered with the Department nor paid the Service Tax and also had not filed ST-3 returns for the period from June 2007 to December 2011.

Where the case gets technical is when it was discovered that the TheniAllinagaram Municipality is formed from an Act of the Tamil Nadu legislature, thereby making it a statutory body which is presently governed by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. However, because of it being an autonomous self-government, when read with Article 243Q of the Indian Constitution, it is settled that municipalities are covered under the definition of State as per Article 12.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the file of original authority who shall adhere to the directions given by the High Court in the case of St. Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram Cantonment Board and then pass a de novo order.

Mere use of lubricants, consumables in relation to Dam Construction work cannot be considered as WCS: CESTAT

Capital Housing Projects Pvt Ltd vs Principal Commissioner ofCentral Tax Guntur - GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 142

M/s Capital Housing Projects Pvt Ltd, the Appellant/Sub-Contractor, are in appeal against the OIO, whereby, the Original Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Rs.2,05,69,323/- and has also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The Adjudicating Authority found no merit in trying the sub-contractor, as there does not appear to be use of any goods involving transfer of property of goods that may be liable for tax as sale of goods, thereby not attracting the nature of a WCS. This makes them ineligible under S.No. 29 (h) of the notification.

The bench held that the activities being performed by the appellant cannot be considered as Works Contract Service (WCS) as there is no evidence to suggest that appellants were discharging VAT on this contract by treating it as deemed sales. Thus, even their alternative claim for exemption under S.No.29(h) of the Notification 25/2012 would also not be admissible because the nature of the work itself being provided by them to their Contractor is not in the nature of WCS and therefore, it would not be covered within the ambit of the said notification.

Reimbursements from Manufacturers for Warranty Services not Taxable before May 2008 Definition Change: CESTAT

M/s. Marikar Motors Ltd vs Office of the Commissioner of CentralExcise, Customs and Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 143

The appellant Marikar (Motors) Ltd., a service provider engaged in "Authorized Service Station Services," "Maintenance or Repair Services," and "Business Auxiliary Services," challenged a service tax demand of Rs. 46,52,790 imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram.

It was observed by the bench that the legal definition of taxable service before 16.05.2008 excluded transactions such as were called in question. The tribunal also stated that the term ‘customer’ in the definition has been replaced with ‘any person’ after the amendment on 16.05.2008. The taxability of such warranty reimbursements, thus, cannot be applied retrospectively.

Referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd, the tribunal ruled that the service tax demand on warranty reimbursements was unsustainable for the period before the 2008 amendment and directed to drop the demand. The appeal was allowed.

Non Payment of Service Tax for Mining Service: CESTAT Upholds Invocation of Extended Period

SLP Contractors vs Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur - GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 144

M/s SLP Contractors (the Appellant) is a proprietary concern. On certain investigation, the department felt that the appellants have undertaken quarrying of black granite in the mines belonging to M/s Golden Granites (GG), as part of an agreement between them and received a share of sale proceeds as consideration for their services. After examining the clauses of the agreement between the appellant and M/s GG, it was alleged that the appellant has been rendering services under the category of ‘Mining Services’ on which they have not discharged Service Tax liability. The department examined various clauses of the agreement and considered that this is not a Joint Venture agreement and it is rather an agreement where the appellants are providing services to M/s GG.

According to the department, since codicil is not a valid agreement to convert an original agreement into a partnership agreement. Furthermore, the counsel is of the opinion that the execution of a codicil itself is not a legal procedure to make changes, especially with regards to the constitution of a firm.

It was observed by the Tribunal that the agreement is not that of partnership and is in the nature of service agreement, where the appellants are service providers and are therefore liable to pay Service Tax. The Tribunal held that they are providing ‘Mining Services’ and not ‘Business Support Services’ and there is sufficient ground for invoking the extended period for raising the demand.

Denial of Refund Claim on Service Tax Rendered for SEZ: CESTAT Remands Matter for Adjudication

M/s. Powergear Ltd. vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 145

The appellant Powergear Ltd. filed refund claims for the services rendered to SEZ. The entire refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds of time-bar. The eligibility of refund claims is based on the guidelines provided, stipulations given in the said notification. The appellants preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Commissioner vide the impugned orders partially rejected the claims and partially remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority.

It had been alleged that payments were made for certain invoices that were beyond the relevant quarter by the appellant, there exists no provision in the notification that puts an effect to this practice.

A single bench of Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) found that neither the issue of violation to para 3(III) (f) has been raised in the show cause notice, nor the issue of specified services marked is raised in the Show cause notice; and therefore, the findings that the impugned order are beyond the charges cast in the show cause notice; and therefore liable to be dropped.

Non-Filing of Nil Service Tax Returns: CESTAT quashes Penalty

M/s S. I. Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise &CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 146

The appellant, a service provider engaged in "Works Contract Service" (Erection, Commissioning, and Installation of boilers, ESPs, etc.), was registered as a service tax assessee during the pre-GST regime. While the appellant had paid service tax on services rendered in the past, an investigation based on third-party information from the Income Tax Department revealed that the appellant had received ₹57,68,440 in 2014-15 but had not paid service tax for that period.

The appellant had argued before the tribunal and earlier as well, that the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Meerut had treated the entire amount declared in the Income Tax return for 2014-15 as taxable without proper inquiry. The counsel presented the case that a portion of the declared amount represented sale of goods, which is not subject to service tax.

Upon review, the tribunal bench of Judicial Member P K Choudhary concluded that the penalty imposed for failing to file a NIL return was unwarranted, as the appellant was not liable for service tax during the period in question.

Discounts on Sale of Goods does not attract Service Tax: CESTAT in Relief to Tata Chemicals

M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise &CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 147

The appellant, Tata Chemicals Limited, is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of fertilizers, chemicals, soda ash, and other consumer products. One of its key products is Muriate of Potash (MOP), which the appellant purchases from M/s Canpotex Limited, Canada, for resale in India.

The bench was clear on the fact that a discount which remains valid if they are not payable at the time of invoicing cannot be taxed. Discounts are only entertained under agreements which directly link the purchase in an agreed period. This period must be known at or before the removal of goods from the possession of the seller.

The tribunal held that no service tax can be imposed on such discounts, as they are directly related to the sale of goods and fall outside the scope of "services" under the Finance Act.

Manufacturers can Claim CENVAT Credit for Capital Goods used in Exempt Intermediate Products made for Dutiable Final Goods: CESTAT

M/s. Fritzmeier Motherson Cabin Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vsCommissioner of GST and Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 148

Fritzmeier Motherson Cabin Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle cabins and cabin parts. The appellant received advances from customers for the manufacture of tools such as welding fixtures and tools.

The main two points in favour of the appellant were precedents including Needle Industries (India) Pvt Ltd v. CCE and Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd v. CCE and a CBEC circular of 2002 that supports their eligibility for CENVAT credit.

The tribunal observed that the circular clarified that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on capital goods utilized in the manufacturing of intermediate goods that are exempt from duty, provided those intermediate goods are used captively in the production of finished goods that are subject to excise duty.

Digital Still Image Video Cameras Eligible for BCD Exemption under Notification if Parameters Fall below Threshold: CESTAT

M/s.Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner of Customs(Airport & Cargo) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 149

Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, is a company engaged in the import of cameras, operating from Gurgaon, Haryana. The appellant imported cameras under 15 Bills of Entry and sought exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) as per the said notification.

Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), New Delhi was relied upon by the appellant side in arguing the point that ambiguity in exemption cases should be resolved in favour of the importer, provided that the claimant showed compliance with all such criteria.

The tribunal explained that the appellant's imported cameras met the technical and functional criteria for the BCD exemption and the denial by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified. The tribunal set aside the impugned order.

CESTAT upholds demand of Service tax on Agency Commission for promoting sale of vehicle

M/s Anand Moters Agencies Ltd VS Commissioner, Central Excise& Service Tax, Lucknow 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 150

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, has said that Agency Commission is the amount paid by Maruti Udyog Ltd. for promoting the sales of vehicles when a new brand/ new version of vehicles is launched. M/s MUL vide their letter dated 12.06.08 have explained that in cases of DGS&D sale, the dealer acts as commission agent as the transaction directly takes place with the buyer. The noticee have also not disputed the issue. This is covered under sub-section (1) of definition of Business Auxiliary Services and the notices are liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 24,527.00.

MUL states that the Government Department wants invoicing to be done directly from the manufacturer and its MUL’s sale is directly with the buyer while dealers act as agents on dealer commission. (conjoining paragraph not comprehensible, need research on service tax Original Appeal)

The Tribunal upheld the demand made in respect of this amount and set aside the impugned order in respect of all other demands made as the issue in respect of those has not been remanded for reconsideration as per the order of High Court.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates