Annual Customs, Excise and Service Tax Case Digest: CESTAT Rulings 2025 (Part 20)

OTN Cards and Modules Incapable of Independent Operation Classifiable as Parts, Not Apparatus: CESTAT Upholds Classification under ‘Parts’ Heading

M/s Fiberhome India Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner ofCustoms 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1051

Fiberhome India Private Limited, the appellant, is engaged in manufacturing Optical Transport Network (OTN) equipment for supply to Indian telecom operators, including BSNL.

The two-member bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) agreed with the appellant’s arguments. The tribunal observed that the cards and modules did not have any independent function and were designed to operate only when slotted into the OTN system.

The tribunal further observed that each card drew power and software control from the main equipment and could not perform any communication or transmission function on its own.

Old and Used Lead Acid Batteries Recovered from Ship Breaking Classifiable Under Heading 8507, Not as Lead Waste and Scrap: CESTAT

Madhav Industrial Corporation vs Commissioner of C.E. &S.T.-Bhavnagar 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1052

Madhav Industrial Corporation, the appellant is engaged in ship breaking activities and recovers various materials from dismantled ships, including old and used Lead Acid Batteries. During the audit, the department found that these batteries were cleared without payment of excise duty.

The tribunal pointed out that the appellant sold the batteries as such to licensed recyclers and did not undertake any activity to convert them into lead scrap. It explained that goods must be classified in the condition in which they are cleared and not based on their future use.

The tribunal observed that since the goods are properly classifiable under Heading 8507, they do not fall under Heading 7802, and Note 9 of Section XV is not applicable. The demand of duty, interest, and penalty was set aside.

Notice Pay Recovered from Employees Who Leave Without Completing Notice Period Not Liable to Service Tax: CESTAT

Cosmo First Limited vs Commissioner of C.E 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1053

Cosmo First Limited, the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of BOPP films and PP granules. During an audit, the department found that the appellant had recovered notice pay from employees who resigned before completing the notice period and treated this amount as taxable under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, which covers “agreeing to the obligation to tolerate an act.”

The two-member bench comprising Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) and Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) observed that the issue was no longer res integra and had been settled in earlier tribunal decisions.

The tribunal explained that consideration is paid for the performance of a contract, while compensation is paid for its breach, and the two cannot be equated. It pointed out that in employment contracts, notice pay is recovered as a penalty for non-performance, not as consideration for any service.

Excise Dues Extinguished Under Approved Resolution Plan: CESTAT Rejects Revenue’s Recovery Appeal Against Bhatia Coke Energy Limited

M/s. Bhatia Coke Energy Limited vs Commissioner of GST andCentral Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1054

Bhatia Coke Energy Limited, the appellant, was subjected to excise duty demands under an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in 2017. Subsequently, insolvency proceedings were initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved a resolution plan for the company on 20.06.2022.

During the pendency of appeals before the CESTAT, the appellant submitted a copy of the NCLT’s order approving the resolution plan and argued that in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2021 (9) SCC 657], all claims and dues not forming part of the approved resolution plan stand extinguished.

The tribunal held that the excise demands against Bhatia Coke Energy Limited were not recoverable and dismissed the revenue’s appeal.

Service Tax Demand Based Solely on ITR and Form 26AS Without Independent Verification Unsustainable: CESTAT Quashes Demand

M/S Santosh Pal Contractor vs Commissioner of Central Excise& CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1055

Santosh Pal Contractor, the appellant, is engaged in civil construction work for government authorities. Based on information received from the Income Tax Department for the financial year 2016-17, the Service Tax Department observed that the appellant had received a gross amount of Rs. 18,53,77,658 as reflected in Form 26AS.

The single-member bench comprising P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) observed that the entire demand had been raised merely on the basis of the ITR and Form 26AS figures, without any enquiry or evidence to show that the receipts were for taxable services.

The tribunal further observed that Form 26AS is prepared by the Income Tax Department and may contain errors, and the department had not verified the reasons for the difference between Form 26AS and the Profit and Loss Account.

Weight-Based Formula to Compute Value Not Legally Valid for Furniture: CESTAT Restores Declared Transaction Value in Nilkamal Ltd Case

Nilkamal Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1056

Nilkamal Limited, the appellant, imported wooden furniture and sofa sets from Malaysia and China during 2012. The customs authorities rejected the declared transaction values under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, citing lack of comparability with contemporaneous imports, and reassessed the goods under Rule 5 using a price-per-kilogram formula.

The tribunal pointed out that the use of “kilogram” as a unit in the tariff schedule is meant only for statistical purposes and cannot be used as a basis for valuation. The tribunal also observed that standing orders or valuation alerts cannot substitute statutory methods prescribed under Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Valuation Rules.

The tribunal set aside the reassessment orders, holding that the weight-based computation was not permissible and that the declared transaction values must be accepted. The appeals were allowed.

12% IGST Applies To All “Diagnostic Kits And Reagents” Under Heading 3822: CESTAT

Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1057

The appeal was filed by Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd., arising out of an order dated 07 July 2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, [CC(I)]. The case originated when the Assessing Officer (AO) reclassified the imported goods from Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 38220019 to CTH 38220090 and denied the benefit of concessional IGST at 12% under Notification No. 1/2017 dated 28 June 2017.

The Bench of S.K. Mohanty, Judicial Member and M.M. Parthiban, Technical Member observed that the issue of applicability of concessional IGST on laboratory reagents had been comprehensively addressed by the GST Council and clarified by the Ministry of Finance through Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST.

The Tribunal held that the intention of Entry 80 of Schedule II of Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017 was to extend the benefit of 12% IGST to all reagents falling under heading 3822, whether diagnostic or laboratory reagents.

BIS Certification Not Required Where Shipment Predated Quality Control: CESTAT quashes Penalty On Import of Stainless Steel Coils

Shah Foils Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs-Ahmedabad 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1058

M/s Shah Foils Ltd., the appellant based in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, imported “Prime Stainless Steel Hot Rolled Coils Grade 201” through three Bills of Entry dated 7 March 2017. The consignment, valued at over Rs. 2.46 crore, was held by the customs authorities for not having the mandatory BIS certification as per the Quality Control Order, which came into effect from 7 February 2017.

The Bench composed of Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha, Judicial Member held that the date of shipment was 30 January 2017, when the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order), 2016 had not yet come into force.

The Tribunal also referred to the earlier precedent in Metro Bright Bar India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) where a similar interpretation was taken.

Loan Prepayment Charges Not Admissible for CENVAT Credit: CESTAT

Global Nonwovens Limited vs Commissioner of Central Goods andService Tax Nashik Commissionerate 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1059

M/s Global Nonwovens Limited, now a division of Jindal Poly Films Ltd., the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of nonwoven fabrics under Non Wovens Fabric 25 GSM, Non Wovens Fabric 150 GSM and other goods falling under Chapter Heading No. 5603 1100, 5603 1400 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, had availed CENVAT credit on service tax charged by banks on loan-related services.

The Bench of Member Technical, M.M. Parthiban held that foreclosure charges or prepayment premiums are not in the nature of services relating to financing but are instead in the nature of compensation or damages for premature termination of loan agreements.

Referring to Repco Home Finance Ltd. (2020), the Tribunal noted that foreclosure charges cannot be treated as taxable under “Banking and Other Financial Services” as defined under Section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994. Since no service tax is leviable on foreclosure charges, there can be no question of availing CENVAT credit on such amounts.

Refund Cannot Be Denied for Lack of BRC/FIRC: CESTAT Sets Aside Rejection in Service Tax Case

GLOBEOP FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA P LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CGSTAND CENTRAL EXCISE 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1060

GlobeOp Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in providing support services and information technology software services. The company filed a refund claim of ₹26,89,302 for the period April 2017 to June 2017 of accumulated Cenvat Credit under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18 June 2012.

The Bench of Anil G. Shakkarwar, Technical Member, held that the appellant’s contentions carried merit. The Tribunal observed that the attempt to include the premises in the registration was evident from the application made on 2 February 2016, and the pendency at the department’s end could not be used against the appellant.

It further held that the condition in the notification merely required debit of Cenvat Credit before filing the refund claim, which had been complied with, and that proof of receipt of convertible foreign exchange was furnished despite absence of BRC/FIRC.

Service Tax Cannot be Levied on TDS on Foreign Remittances Paid under Income Tax Act: CESTAT

International Flavours & Fragrances India P. Ltd vsCommissioner of GST & Central Excise

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1061

The bench of M. Ajit Kumar (Technical member) and P. Dinesha (Judicial member) upheld the appellant’s contention, ruling that TDS is merely a statutory obligation under the Income Tax Act and cannot be treated as consideration for services rendered.

It observed that the value of taxable services is confined to the amount invoiced by the foreign service provider, whereas TDS is determined by statutory rates and has no nexus with the agreed service charges.

The Bench further noted that when an assessee “grosses up” TDS, it is only to comply with income tax provisions and does not signify an enhancement of the service provider’s remuneration.

Declared Value of Black Pepper Imports Valid: CESTAT quashes ₹55 Crore Customs Penalty

Shri Saravanan Palaniappan vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1062

The appeals were filed by Shri Saravanan Palaniappan, Partner of M/s. Sindhu Lakshmi Impex, Shri Malav Rajen Shah, Director of M/s. BNM Global Ventures, and M/s. Sindhu Lakshmi Impex. The dispute originated from the import of 10,79,000 kilograms of Black Pepper from an entity in Sri Lanka.

The Tribunal found no basis for rejecting transaction value solely on the ground of relationship between importer and exporter, particularly when the issue was of overvaluation rather than undervaluation. Import duties and GST had been duly paid, and no loss to the exchequer was established.

Consequently, CESTAT set aside the impugned order, holding that penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 unsustainable.

Classification of ATM Rolls as Printing Industry Products: CESTAT sets aside Excise Duty Demands

M/s. MAS Computer Forms-Unit II vs Commissioner of GST andCentral Excise

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1063

M/s MAS Computer Forms–Unit II, the appellant, had imported jumbo rolls of thermal paper under Tariff Heading 48119099 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. These were subsequently printed with customer logos, names, and advertisements, cut into size, and sold as ATM rolls. The appellant classified these under Heading 49019900, treating them as printed matter exempt from duty, while discharging 5% of the value of clearances under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings CCE v. Gopsons Papers Ltd. (supra), holding that the ratio applied squarely to the present case. The bench clarified that its 2019 order against the appellant was per incuriam as it had not considered the Supreme Court’s binding decision.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and quashed the duty demands.

Railway Locomotive Parts Classified Under Chapter Heading 8607: CESTAT upholds Concessional Excise Duty

Commissioner of GST and Central Excise vs M/s. CraftsmanAutomation Ltd. 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1064

The case arose out of an appeal filed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore Commissionerate, against Order-in-Appeal No. 07/2023 dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of M/s. Craftsman Automation Ltd. (Unit-3).

The Bench comprising Ajayan T.V., Judicial Member, and Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member held that the goods manufactured by Craftsman Automation Ltd. were rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8607 as parts of railway locomotives.

The bench noted that the products had no independent marketability and were used exclusively in locomotives, satisfying the “sole or principal use” test under Note 3 of Section XVII of the Tariff.

Higher Import Duty applicable at 7.5% Upon Import of Aluminium Foils as per Date of Crystallization: CESTAT rejects Jil Pack’s Refund Claim

Jil Pack vs C.C.-Jamnagar(prev) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1065

The appellant, Jil Pack, based in Ahmedabad, had imported aluminium foils from China. The consignment was shipped on a vessel carrying cargo for two different importers, one in Thane and the other being the appellant. The vessel first arrived at Bombay Port on 27 February 2016, in which the goods meant for the Thane importer were unloaded as the consignment for Jil Pack was offloaded later at Pipavav Port on 1 March 2016.

The Bench of Judicial Member, Somesh Arora upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), reiterating that Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 is a machinery provision prescribing the relevant date for determination of the rate of duty.

While goods assume the character of imported goods upon entry into territorial waters, assessment must follow the statutory scheme, which specifies that the rate applicable is the one prevailing on the date of entry inwards when the bill of entry is filed in advance. The Tribunal further observed that entry inwards is port-specific under Section 31 and must be granted at each port by the proper officer.

Extended Limitation Cannot Be Invoked When all Details Disclosed in Returns: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand on Reimbursed Diesel Costs for DG Set Rentals

M/s Jainson Generators vs Commissioner of Central Goods &Services Tax, Meerut 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1066

The Tribunal held that reimbursable diesel costs cannot be included in the taxable value of services under “supply of tangible goods,” and further ruled that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified since all relevant details had been disclosed in statutory returns and income tax records.

The appellants, M/s Jainson Generators and M/s Anju Jain Generator Contractor were engaged in providing DG sets on hire to banks and other clients, who separately reimbursed the diesel expenses required for running the generators. While service tax was duly paid on rental charges, no tax was charged on reimbursed diesel costs, which were billed separately.

According to the bench, the extended limitation under Section 73(1) could only be invoked when suppression was deliberate and with intent to evade duty, conditions absent in the present case.

Credit Availed Beyond One Year from Date of Invoice Inadmissible Under Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules: CESTAT

M/s V.B. Digital Distribution Cable Network vs Commissioner ofCentral Excise & CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1067

V.B. Digital Distribution Cable Network, the appellant, was registered under the Finance Act, 1994 and engaged in providing cable operator services.

The single-member bench comprising Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) observed that Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 clearly restricts the availment of credit to within six months or one year from the date of the invoice.

The tribunal explained that the limitation period is mandatory and does not admit any exception. It pointed out that the benefit of Cenvat credit cannot be extended merely because the invoices are genuine or the services are used for taxable output; the statutory condition of time-bound availment must be satisfied.

Compensation for Surrendering Tenancy Rights is a Capital Receipt, Not a Service: CESTAT

SUPERTEX WOVEN INDUSTRIES vs COMMISSIONER OF C.E. & S.T 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1068

Supertex Woven Industries, the appellant, was engaged in the manufacture of goods under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During an audit for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, the department found that the appellant had surrendered tenancy and occupancy rights of its registered office premises at Mumbai to Sumer Buildcorp Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 6,29,44,000 but had not paid service tax on the amount.

The two-member bench comprising Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) and Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) observed that tenancy rights are benefits arising out of land and thus qualify as immovable property. The tribunal referred to Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, which excludes transfer of title in immovable property from the definition of service.

It relied on precedents holding that surrender of tenancy rights amounts to transfer of an interest in immovable property and cannot be treated as a taxable service. The tribunal also observed that the consideration received was in the nature of compensation for surrender of a capital asset and was subject to capital gains under the Income Tax Act, not service tax.

Outward Freight up to Buyer’s Premises Eligible for CENVAT Credit When Sale is on FOR Basis: CESTAT

M/s. Sri Poovathal Polymers vs Commissioner of GST and CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1069

Sri Poovathal Polymers, the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of plastic products and availed CENVAT credit on input services, including Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services used for delivering finished goods to customers.

The department issued a show cause notice alleging that the appellant wrongly availed credit on outward freight beyond the place of removal, which, according to the department, should be limited to the factory gate.

The tribunal set aside the demand, interest, and penalty, holding that the appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on outward freight up to the buyer’s premises. The appeal was allowed in favor of Sri Poovathal Polymers.

Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Applies Only for Removal or Accounting Violations, Not for Facilitation of Fake Credit: CESTAT

M/s Bhupindra Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise andService Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1070

Bhupindra Industries, the appellant, is a manufacturer registered under the Central Excise law.

The department issued two show cause notices proposing penalty under Rule 25(1) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, alleging that the appellant had connived with Modi Alloys & Metallics Pvt. Ltd. to pass on fraudulent Cenvat credit through invoices without actual supply of goods.

The tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed under Rule 25(1) read with Section 11AC was unsustainable and set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Relief for BEML: CESTAT holds Goods Sold to Industrial Consumers Not Liable for MRP-Based Assessment u/s 4A of CEA

M/s. BEML Ltd vs The Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1071

BEML Ltd., appellant-assessee, manufactured dumpers, water sprinklers, motor graders, Tatra trucks, Tatra engines, and other goods under Chapters 84 and 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, primarily supplying industrial and institutional customers such as mining, construction, rail, metro, and defence sectors.

The two member bench comprising D.M.Mishra (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageshwara Rao (Technical Member) observed that the main issue was whether the spare parts and components imported by the appellant for dumpers, motor graders, and other industrial goods were liable for MRP-based assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The tribunal noted that the Commissioner had held that, as the appellant was an importer, the goods were liable to MRP-based duty, relying on the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

DGCEI Officers Competent to Issue Duty Demands under Section 28 of Customs Act: CESTAT confirms Validity of SCN

M/s. Raja Metal Corporation vs Commissioner of Customs (Seaport– Export)

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1072

The proceedings were issued against Raja Metal Corporation, a partnership firm that had imported stainless steel coils and sheets duty-free under the Advance Licence Scheme for manufacture and export of stainless steel utensils.

Following intelligence, DGCEI unearthed diversion of the imported raw materials to the domestic market without corresponding exports. Duty demand of nearly ₹56.95 lakh was confirmed, with ₹7 lakh already paid voluntarily appropriated.

Accepting the appellant’s plea, CESTAT held that in the absence of machinery provisions under the Customs Act for recovery from legal heirs or dissolved firms, the appeal abated in terms of Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Rules 10 & 8 of CEV Rules Do Not Apply when Job-Worked Goods are Returned to Principal Manufacturer and Consumed in Further Manufacture: CESTAT

M/s. Smith Enterprises vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1073

The bench ruled that “where the finished products manufactured on job work basis, were sent back to principal-manufacturer providing raw material and consumed by the principal-manufacturer for further manufacture of final product, Rules 10 and 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 are not applicable and the question framed by us is answered in favour of the Appellant.”

The appellants, M/s. Smith Enterprises and M/s. E-Mox Device Company had been manufacturing HDPE plastic caps on a job-work basis for M/s. Marico Ltd. using raw materials supplied by the latter.

The tribunal held that the impugned orders in appeal cannot sustain insofar as the duty demand which is challenged in these appeals is concerned. Accordingly, the demand was set aside.

Extended Limitation cannot be Invoked Once Facts already Disclosed in Returns: CESTAT

M/s.S.K.S. Mills vs The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1074

The Tribunal set aside a demand raised against M/s S.K.S. Mills, a cotton yarn manufacturer, noting that the Revenue was fully aware of the transactions from the assessee’s ER-1 returns and earlier proceedings.

The appellant, S.K.S. Mills was engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and cotton/PVA yarn. Until October 2010, it operated as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). Upon exit from EOU status on 25.10.2010, the unit cleared finished goods at a nil rate of duty by availing exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE and filed ER-1 returns.

During audit by CERA, it was noticed that the assessee had availed and utilised accumulated CENVAT credit on capital goods and finished goods even after debonding. Consequently, multiple show cause notices (SCNs) were issued between 2012-2013, culminating in an adjudication order confirming the demands.

Cropping of Grey Fabrics Does Not Constitute Manufacture, No Excise Duty Payable: CESTAT

M/s.Madura Coats Private Ltd vs The Commissioner of GST &Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1075

Madura Coats Private Limited, the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, polyester yarn, blended yarn, and various fabrics. During a stock verification conducted by the central excise department, certain shortages and excesses were noticed in the finished goods.

The department issued show cause notices alleging unaccounted production and clearance without payment of duty and demanded duty of Rs. 1,25,60,718 along with penalties.

The two-member bench comprising P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) observed that there was no evidence of clandestine removal of goods and that the department had adopted inconsistent bases for calculating shortages and excesses. The tribunal explained that the cropping process did not change the character or use of the grey fabrics and thus could not be treated as manufacture.

CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied If Goods Are Received with Valid Invoices and Duty Is Paid and Accepted: CESTAT

M/s. Super Smelters (P) Limited vs Commissioner of Central Goodsand Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1076

Super Smelters (P) Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of Silico-Manganese, M.S. Billets, and Sponge Iron. During the audit, the department alleged that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT credit on Ferro Manganese Slag, which was exempt from excise duty.

The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the goods were received under valid invoices and duly accounted for, and there was no evidence that the duty paid by the suppliers had been questioned by their jurisdictional authorities.

It pointed out that a circular cannot impose new conditions not contained in the statute and cannot override the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The tribunal explained that once duty has been paid and accepted by the department, the recipient is entitled to avail credit.

Silver Granules Not Notified Goods u/s 123 of Customs, Burden of Proof Lies With Revenue: CESTAT Quashes Confiscation of 260 Kg Silver and Vehicle

Shri Vikash Kumar Agrawal vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1077

The tribunal held that silver granules are not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the burden of proof lies with the department.

Vikash Kumar Agarwal, Shashank Agarwal, and Santosh Kumar, the appellants, were subjected to proceedings after officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a Hyundai i20 car near Maniyari Toll Plaza, Bihar, and recovered 260.67 kg of silver granules concealed in secret cavities. The officers seized the goods on suspicion that they were smuggled from Nepal.

The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that silver granules are not notified under Section 123 and that the burden of proving smuggling lies with the revenue.

Cargo Space Sales and Reimbursable Expenses Not Liable to Service Tax: CESTAT Upholds Exemption for UN Peacekeeping Services

The Commissioner, CGST Delhi South Commissionerate vs M/s. PSBLogistics Pvt Ltd. 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1078

The bench of Ms. Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) ruled that purchasing and reselling shipping space on a principal-to-principal basis is trading, not a taxable service. The "markup" was profit from goods, not service consideration.

Further held that PSB Logistics qualified as a "pure agent" under Rule 5(2) by separately invoicing statutory charges (customs duty, toll tax, etc.). Markups did not negate this status, as expenses were passed through without profit. It was held that the services for UN Peacekeeping missions were exempt under Notification No. 16/2002-ST, as the UN Security Council is an integral UN organ. The Tribunal relied on Corporate Housekeeping Services to confirm that services to UN entities qualify for blanket exemption.

The Tribunal ruled that Commission earned from cargo space sales is not liable to service tax, as purchasing and reselling shipping space on a principal-to-principal basis constitutes trading, not a taxable service. Reimbursable expenses (e.g., customs duty, toll tax) are exempt under Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, as PSB Logistics acted as a "pure agent" by separately invoicing statutory charges.

Revenue cannot compel Assessee to Take One of Available Options: CESTAT quashes Service Tax Demand on Transaction w/o Flow of Consideration in Terms of Money

M/s.VKC Credit and Forex Services vs The Commissioner of GST& Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1079

The appellant, an RBI-authorized foreign exchange dealer registered under the category of “Banking and Other Financial Services,” carried on the business of buying and selling foreign currency, traveller’s cheques, and prepaid travel cards. The dispute pertained to the tax periods between April 2008 and March 2012.

However, the Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner’s finding that the benefit of Notification No. 27/2011-ST dated March 31, 2011, expanding exemption under Notification No. 19/2009-ST, would operate prospectively and not retrospectively.

The decision, rendered by the Division Bench comprising P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member), was delivered on January 17, 2025.

CESTAT holds Exemption under Notification 19/2009-ST as Prospective, upholds Right to Tax Option under Rule 6(7B)

M/s. Kiran Global Chems. Ltd. vs Commissioner of GST and CentralExcise

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1080

The matter arose from a Service Tax demand made by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Coimbatore, through Order-in-Original No. 1/2015 dated January 20, 2015. The dispute concerned whether the construction of residential complexes by the assessee was correctly classified under “Construction of Complex Service (CCS)” or whether it should be reclassified as “Works Contract Service (WCS)” under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The assessee, engaged in the construction of residential projects, had paid Service Tax under CCS by availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated March 1, 2006. Upon audit, the department noticed that the assessee was also registered under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 and had paid VAT on materials used in construction such as cement and steel. The department therefore contended that the contracts executed were composite in nature comprising both goods and services and hence should fall under the scope of WCS.

A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated March 3, 2014 was issued proposing reclassification, differential tax demand, interest, and penalties, invoking the extended limitation period. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Micronutrient-Based Products Used for Soil Fertility are Fertilizers, Not Plant Growth Regulators: CESTAT Rules No Excise Duty Payable

M/s. Total Agri Care Concern Private Limited vs Commissioner ofC.G.S.T. and Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1081

Total Agri Care Concern Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of agricultural products such as micronutrients, bio-fertilizers, and plant growth promoters.

The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the essential function of the products is to supply nutrients for soil fertility and plant growth.

The tribunal explained that mere presence of natural extracts or auxin-like compounds in negligible amounts does not change the fundamental nature of the products into PGRs. It pointed out that growth promoters aid natural processes, while PGRs regulate or alter them, and this distinction has been recognized in several judicial rulings.

CBEC’s 2016 Circular Clarifying Classification of Micronutrients and PGRs is Prospective: CESTAT Sets Aside Excise Duty Demands

M/s. Total Agri Care Concern Private Limited vs Commissioner ofC.G.S.T. and Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1082

Total Agri Care Concern Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in manufacturing agricultural inputs such as bio-fertilizers, micronutrients, multi-micronutrients, and plant growth promoters.

The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the 2016 circular expressly rescinded earlier circulars and introduced new directions after recognizing that classification of micronutrients and PGRs had remained a disputed issue for years. The tribunal explained that since the circular itself acknowledged ongoing uncertainty before 2016, it could not be applied to past clearances.

The tribunal pointed out that applying the circular retrospectively would be contrary to law and judicial precedents. Relying on rulings such as Karnataka Agro Chemicals and Suchitra Components, the bench held that the circular must operate prospectively.

Training for Government Agencies May Still Fall Under Commercial Coaching Depending on the Agreement: CESTAT

M/s. Jungle Lodges and Resorts Limited vs Commissioner ofCentral Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1083

Jungle Lodges and Resorts Limited, the appellant, entered into an agreement dated 16 November 2009 with the Department of Environment and Forest, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, for conducting training programs in eco-tourism and habitat management.

The two-member bench comprising P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) observed that the appellant entered into a formal agreement to conduct training and received consideration for the program.

The tribunal explained that the nature of the recipient does not change the classification if the service meets the statutory definition. It pointed out that the activity was systematic and organized, falling within the scope of “Commercial Training or Coaching Service.”

Revenue cannot Question Economic Viability of making use of Low Grade Sponge Iron for the manufacture of High grade Sponge Iron : CESTAT allows CENVAT Credit

M/s. Nilachal Iron & Power Limited vs Commissioner of CGST& Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1084

The Tribunal thus set aside excise duty demands and allowed CENVAT credit on the use of low-grade sponge iron for reprocessing into high-grade sponge iron.

In the present case, the Tribunal said that the Revenue had failed to produce any evidence of diversion or misuse of inputs. No discrepancies were found in statutory registers, and there was no material to establish that input-output ratios were manipulated.

The bench further observed that no prudent businessperson would pay for unusable inputs along with excise duty merely to avail CENVAT credit. Since the appellant had maintained proper accounts and discharged duty on finished goods, denial of credit solely on grounds of alleged economic impracticality was held unjustified.

Dept alleges Clandestine Sale without producing Corroborative Evidence such as Consumption of Electricity: CESTAT quashes Excise Duty

M/s. Sai Electro casting Pvt. Limited vs The PrincipalCommissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1085

The appellant Sai Electro casting Pvt. Limited filed appeal against the revenue. The Revenue had alleged that the appellant received large quantities of sponge iron from its sister concern, M/s Sai Sponge (India) Pvt. Ltd., without payment of duty during FY 2009-10 and 2010-11.

The Bench of R. Muralidhar (Judicial member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical member) noted that without corroborative evidence like excess power consumption, purchase of raw materials, transportation payments, and buyer details, clandestine removal cannot be sustained.

The CESTAT also noted that since the alleged clandestine clearances were linked to supposed illicit removals by Sai Sponge, and the demand against Sai Sponge had already been set aside in a connected appeal, the foundation of the Revenue’s case collapsed.

Services Provided to SEZ Units Not Covered Under Rule 6(3) of CCR, No Reversal of Credit Required: CESTAT

M/s Sapient Consulting Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of ServiceTax-Delhi-I 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1086

Sapient Consulting Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in providing manpower recruitment and related services to SEZ units and other clients. The department took the view that since the appellant was providing both taxable and exempted services, they were required to reverse credit under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The two-member bench comprising S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that Rule 6(6A), introduced by Notification No. 03/2011-CX (NT), specifically excluded services provided to SEZ units from the scope of Rule 6(1) to 6(4).

The tribunal further observed that through Section 144 of the Finance Act, 2012, this benefit was made retrospective. The tribunal explained that services rendered to SEZ units are treated as export of services under the SEZ Act, 2005, and the provisions of Rule 6(3) do not apply.

Service Tax on Passenger Service Fee (PSF) Payable by Airport Authority, Not Airlines: CESTAT

M/s Austrian Airlines vs Commissioner of Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1087

Austrian Airlines, the appellant, is a registered service provider under the service tax law and was paying service tax on air travel services. The department, after examining the appellant’s records, alleged that the airline had not included certain charges, such as Passenger Service Fee (PSF) and airport taxes, in the assessable value while calculating service tax.

The two-member bench comprising S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the issue had already been settled in favour of the appellant by the Principal Bench of the tribunal.

The tribunal further observed that documents produced by the appellant, including invoices and certificates from the Airport Authority, confirmed that service tax on PSF had been paid by the Airport Authority to the government.

Photographic Flashlights Producing Short-Duration Light Classifiable as Photographic Equipment, Not as Lamps and Lighting Fittings: CESTAT

M/s Simpex Industries vs Principal Commissioner of Customs(Import) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1088

Simpex Industries, the appellant, imported LED photographic lighting equipment during the period from March 2018 to March 2022. The goods were classified by the appellant under the tariff heading for photographic equipment, on which basic customs duty at 10% was paid.

The bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that the earlier orders in the appellant’s own case had classified identical goods as photographic equipment and had been accepted by the department.

The tribunal explained that judicial discipline required the Principal Commissioner to follow those orders and not take a different view. It further observed that the product catalogues and technical details showed that the goods produced bright light for a very short duration and were used for photography, making them photographic flashlights.

Failure of Dept to Prove Misclassification: CESTAT sets aside Customs Classification of Optical Power Ground Wire

M/s. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1089

The Tribunal held that the Customs Department failed to substantiate the reclassification under Tariff Heading 9001 and had not produced conclusive test evidence.

The appellant, Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., imported Optical Power Ground Wire Fibre Cables and their accessories, declaring them under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8544 with corresponding accessories under 853670. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 1 March 2005. However, the Adjudicating Authority denied the classification and exemption, holding that the goods were classifiable under CTH 9001 and accessories under 7616, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The CESTAT set aside the impugned order, holding that the Revenue failed to establish the correctness of the reclassification under Heading 9001. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

CESTAT clarifies Service Tax Demand on Transportation Income, classifies Tirupur Container Terminals’ Services under Cargo Handling

M/s. Tirupur Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of GSTand Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1090

The appellant, an Inland Container Depot (ICD), was engaged in providing cargo handling services for import and export consignments. The Revenue alleged that apart from CHS, the assessee also arranged logistics for transportation of cargo and collected charges higher than actual costs from Customs House Agents (CHAs).

The Bench comprising Mr. P.Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) noted that the appellant was providing composite cargo handling services, wherein transportation was only an ancillary activity. The Tribunal held that Revenue had not provided sufficient justification for classifying the service as “Business Support Service.”

It further observed that under Section 65A, specific descriptions take precedence over general ones. Therefore, services rendered by an ICD involving transportation of containers as part of cargo handling cannot be taxed under another head. The Bench emphasized that the demand based on mere differences in transport income and expenses lacked legal basis.

Doubt on Importer Status and Duty Payment: CESTAT remands SAP Software Import Case for Fresh Adjudication

M/s.Rane Holdings Ltd vs The Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1091

A Two-Member Bench comprising Mr.P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) passed the common order on January 17, 2025, following the hearing on November 12, 2024. The appeals arose from separate orders issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai.

The Tribunal noted that the SAP Tutor software imported under the courier Bill of Entry differed from the mySAP ERP software under the EUVLA. It further held that the importer for the licensed ERP software was Rane Engine Valves Ltd., not Rane Holdings. The Bench observed that the liability for customs duty lies with the importer and not with an affiliate user.

Importantly, the Tribunal found that the record was unclear on whether Rane Holdings had actually paid the ₹31.5 lakh license fee and whether the duties paid by REV and SAP India had already satisfied the customs obligation. The lower authorities also failed to examine the effect of these payments and whether invoking the extended limitation period and penalties was justified.

Customs Broker Not Liable for Exporters’ Fraudulent Activities If Documents Were Verified and Actions Taken in Good Faith: CESTAT

M/s. Auro Logistix vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1092

Auro Logistix, the appellant, is a licensed customs broker operating under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata, passed two separate orders on March 4, 2024, revoking the broker’s license, forfeiting its security deposit, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 in each case.

The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that no evidence was produced to show that the customs broker was involved in any fraudulent activity.

The tribunal explained that the broker had performed all required verifications and that mere acceptance of documents from the exporters could not amount to a breach of the regulations. It pointed out that obligations under Regulation 10 should be reasonably construed and cannot impose strict liability when the broker acts in good faith.

Penalty not Justified for Procedural Lapses like Late Filing of Returns in Absence of Fraud, Negligence or Intent to Evade Taxes: CESTAT

M/s Paramount Surgimed Limited vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1093

Paramount Surgimed Ltd., the appellant, is an importer availing concessional customs duty under Exemption Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30 June 2017. As per Rule 6(3) of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017, the appellant was required to file quarterly returns within ten days from the end of each quarter.

The single-member bench comprising Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) observed that the delay in filing quarterly returns was purely procedural and not deliberate. The bench pointed out that the appellant had filed all returns and the competent authority had issued certificates confirming compliance.

It further observed that the penalty cannot be imposed automatically and must be based on evidence of fraud, gross negligence, or intent to evade duty. The tribunal explained that penalties are intended to ensure compliance and cannot be invoked for bona fide or technical lapses.

Non-Verification of Electronic Evidence with Corroborating Statements as per S.9D of Central Excise Act: CESTAT quashes Demand Order on Alleged Clandestine Movement of M S Ingots

M/s. Geetham Steels Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1094

M/s Geetham Steels Pvt. Ltd., the leading appellant, was engaged in the manufacture of Mild Steel Ingots and held central excise registration under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence(DGCEI) conducted searches at the factory and related premises on 28 September 2010, seizing computers, pen drives, and various documents.

The Bench comprising of Ajayan T V, Judicial Member, and Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member, held that compliance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is mandatory before any statement recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act can be used as evidence in adjudication proceedings. The Bench observed that the section provides a specific procedure whereby the adjudicating authority must first examine the person who made the statement and allow the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine them.

The Tribunal reasoned that statements recorded during investigation cannot be treated as substantive evidence unless they pass the test prescribed under Section 9D(2). The Bench further clarified that a plea of non-compliance with Section 9D can be raised at the appellate stage since it involves a question of law.

Appeal Maintainable against Anti-Dumping Duty on Ophthalmic Lenses as Finance Act, 2023 Amendments Not Yet in Force: CESTAT

Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd vs Designated Authority 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1095

The assessee, Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, assailing the final findings dated September 29, 2022, of the Designated Authority recommending the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of semi-finished ophthalmic lenses from China PR, and the consequential Customs Notification No. 32/2022-Customs (ADD) dated December 27, 2022, which imposed such duty for five years.

The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President), Binu Tamta (Judicial Member), and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) rejected the Department’s contention. The Tribunal observed that Section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023, explicitly mandates that Sections 128 to 163 (including Section 134) shall come into force on a date appointed by the Central Government through notification in the Official Gazette.

Since no such notification had been issued, the Tribunal ruled that the amendments made to Sections 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act have not come into effect. Therefore, the pre-amended provisions under which appeals against government notifications imposing anti-dumping duties are maintainable before the CESTAT, remain applicable.

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System Glitches: CESTAT remands Refund Claim on CVD Paid for Fresh Adjudication

Commissioner of Customs vs M/s. M.M. Enterprises 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1096

The assessee had imported PVC-coated cloth during 2010-2015 and paid Countervailing Duty (CVD) despite exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE, as the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) system failed to reflect the notification details. Similar importers had earlier secured refund of CVD through favorable orders, ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Enterprise International Ltd. [2017 (346) ELT A130 (SC)].

The Tribunal Bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) while passing the order, noted that although the Revenue’s contention on the finality of assessments carried weight, the refund claims needed to be evaluated within the framework of the Customs Act and established judicial precedents, including Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1997]. The Bench observed that equality cannot be claimed in illegality but acknowledged procedural lapses, including the non-communication of the Tribunal’s earlier recall order to the parties.

CESTAT allows Suo-Moto Re-Credit of Cenvat Credit without Refund Procedure u/s 11B, quashes Order, Penalty and Interest

M/s. Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1097

The Tribunal noted that the department never disputed the appellant’s eligibility to claim the credit, and that the reversal and re-credit were merely accounting entries. Citing ICMC Corporation Ltd. v. CCE [2014], and similar precedents including Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. [2020] and PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [2018], the Bench reaffirmed that suo-moto re-credit of reversed credit is permissible when the entitlement is undisputed and no refund of money from the exchequer is involved.

The Tribunal further held that since the department was aware of the appellant’s intention to re-avail credit and the entries were disclosed in returns, there was no suppression or wilful misstatement. Consequently, invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified, and the demand was barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

Concluding, the Bench held that both the demand and the penalties were unsustainable and allowed the appeal in full, granting consequential reliefs in accordance with law.

Benefit of Customs Duty Exemption on Imported Drugs applicable to Bulk Drugs Also: CESTAT

Apicore Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs C.C.E. &S.T.-Vadodara-I 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1098

The Bench of Judicial Member Somesh Arora, after hearing both sides, observed that the issue had already been conclusively settled in the Aurobindo Pharma case, where the Tribunal held that all drugs and medicines, including their salts, esters, and diagnostic test kits listed under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1 March 2002, qualify for the exemption.

The Tribunal noted that the distinction between “drugs” and “bulk drugs” was immaterial for the purpose of applying the notification.

Finding no contrary precedent presented by the Department, the Tribunal ruled that the matter was no longer res integra and allowed the appeal. The CESTAT concluded that the pharma exporter was entitled to the exemption and directed consequential relief.

Transfer of Development Rights Does Not Attract Service Tax as It Amounts to Transfer of Immovable Property: CESTAT

M/s. Genius Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CentralExcise and CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1099

Genius Propbuild Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee, was registered with the Service Tax Authorities for various services, including ‘rent-a-cab scheme,’ ‘operator service,’ ‘security detective agency service,’ ‘construction services’ excluding residential complexes, construction of residential complexes, contract services, and other taxable services.

The assessee, as the landowner, had transferred Land Development Rights to M/s. GRJ Developers and Distributors under a Collaboration Agreement dated March 20, 2014, to govern the construction and development of the land, along with the selling rights.

It observed that when a landowner transferred development rights to a developer, the developer gained the right to develop the land, sell the developed property along with the undivided interest in the land, and collect payments from buyers. The undivided interest in the land effectively transferred in return for the consideration paid for development rights, placing the transaction outside the definition of “service.”

Extended Period of Limitation for Service Tax Not Invocable in Lack of Suppression of Facts: CESTAT Sets Aside Demand under Finance Act, 1994

M/s Samriddhi Infrabuild vs Commissioner of Central Excise &CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1100

After hearing both sides, P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) opined that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit of exemption/abatement for services provided to the corporate bodies other than UPRNNL. It was asserted that in a case in which a SCN has been issued for the earlier period on a certain set of facts, then on the same set of facts another SCN invoking an extended period of limitation cannot be issued.

To conclude, there was no evidence of suppression of facts on the part of the Appellant and as a result, another period of limitation is not invokable. The Appellant were regularly filling ST-3 Returns and all the facts were in the knowledge of the Department. Hence, the impugned order was set aside.

The appeal filed was thereby allowed.

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