Annual Customs, Excise and Service Tax Case Digest: CESTAT Rulings 2025 (Part 21)

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

No Service Tax on Manpower Supplied by Parent Company to Its Project Office in India: CESTAT

Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise vsM/s.Oriental Consultant Company Ltd 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1101

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Delhi East, against Oriental Consultant Company Ltd., a project office of Oriental Consultants Co. Ltd., Japan. The department alleged that the project office in India had received manpower supply services from its parent company abroad and was liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism.

The bench comprising Ms. Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Mr. P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that the project office and the parent company are not distinct entities for the purpose of service tax. It pointed out that the expenses recorded in the accounts were part of internal financial arrangements and did not represent consideration for any taxable service.

The tribunal explained that while the Revenue relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd., the facts of that case were different because it involved secondment of employees between two separate legal entities.

Setback for MRF Ltd: CESTAT Rules Imported Rubber Attracts Additional Customs Duty Equal to Rubber Cess, Refund Denied

M/s. MRF Limited vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1102

MRF Ltd., the appellant, imported natural rubber and classified it under Customs Tariff Heading 40012100. The customs authorities assessed the goods to additional duty of customs under Section 3(1)of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, equivalent to the rubber cess payable under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) observed that the issue was no longer open to dispute, as it had been conclusively decided by the Larger Bench in TTK-LIG Ltd.

The Larger Bench had held that additional customs duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act was leviable on imported rubber equal to the cess under the Rubber Act. The tribunal pointed out that Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act allows imposition of additional duty on imported goods equivalent to the excise duty or cess on goods produced in India.

CESTAT Upholds Service Tax Refund to Go Go International: Rejection on Export Services for Limitation and Minor Procedural Lapses Set Aside

M/s. Go Go International Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner of CentralExcise, Bangalore 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1103

The appellant, M/s. Go Go International Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the export of goods. They filed multiple refund claims for service tax paid on transportation and courier services used for exporting their products. In two appeals, they argued that their refund claim was filed within the prescribed limitation period, as it was made within three months of the actual payment of the tax following an audit objection.

A bench of Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial), after perusing the records, observed that the authorities below had misinterpreted the limitation period. The Tribunal held that the period starts from the date of payment of tax, and since the appellant had filed the claim within three months of payment, it was timely.

Regarding the procedural lapses, the Tribunal relied on a Board Circular and previous judgments, noting that the appellant had cured the initial defects by producing all relevant documents. The Tribunal emphasized that a substantial refund claim cannot be denied for such minor infractions that were subsequently rectified.

Relief to TVS Motor Company: CESTAT Allows Netting Off of Excess Excise Duty in Provisional Assessment, Remands Unjust Enrichment Issue

M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise AndService Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1104

The appellant, M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd., is a manufacturer of two and three-wheelers. They had paid excise duty under a provisional assessment system, as certain discounts and abatements, such as freight, free service charges, and various dealer incentives, were not known at the time of clearance. After finalization, they sought to adjust the excess duty paid against periods where duty was short-paid ("netting off").

A bench of Dr. D.M. Misra and Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, after perusing the records, made a two-part decision. On the issue of netting off, the Tribunal relied on its own precedent and a binding judgment of the Karnataka High Court to hold that adjusting excess duty against short-paid duty is permissible during the finalization of a provisional assessment. However, on the issue of unjust enrichment, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities had rejected the claims based on "hypothetical examples" rather than a proper examination of the evidence submitted by TVS.

Consequently, the CESTAT held that the netting off of duty was legally permissible. While allowing TVS's appeals on this specific issue, the Tribunal remanded the question of unjust enrichment back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh and detailed examination of the evidence to determine if the duty burden was, in fact, passed on.

FOB Value Cannot be Treated as CUM Duty Price for Export Duty: CESTAT Dismisses Essel Mining's Appeal

M/s Essel Mining and Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1105

The appellant, M/s Essel Mining and Industries Ltd., is engaged in exporting iron ore. They argued that for the purpose of assessing export duty, the FOB value should be considered as a "CUM duty price," meaning the export duty amount should be deducted from the FOB value before computing the final tax liability. They contended that not doing so amounted to charging "duty on duty" and relied on a Board's Circular to support their interpretation.

A two member bench of A.K. Jyotishi (Technical) and Angad Prasad (Judicial), after perusing the records and relying on precedents including the case of Sesa Goa Ltd., observed that the FOB price is the price actually paid or payable for the exported goods. The assessable value cannot be reduced by extending the benefit of a "CUM duty price." The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld the department's stance.

Consequently, the CESTAT held that the export duty must be calculated on the full FOB value. In dismissing the appeals filed by Essel Mining, the Tribunal upheld the department's demand, confirming that treating the FOB value as a "CUM duty price" to lower the assessable value was not legally permissible.

Service Tax Not Payable When Materials Supplied Free By Client: CESTAT allows 60% of Abatement

M/s R. N. Contractor vs Commissioner 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1106

R.N. Contractor, the appellant, was engaged in providing works contract services such as foundation and erection work for transmission lines to companies including Tata Projects Ltd., Isolux Corsan India, Unitech Power Transmission Ltd., and R.S. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.

The single-member bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) observed that in all the work orders, the service recipients had provided free materials such as cement and steel for executing the works. The tribunal explained that since the free materials were supplied by the clients, denial of 60% abatement was unjustified.

The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. [2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 118 (S.C.)], which held that the value of goods or materials supplied free of cost by the client cannot be included in the gross amount charged by the service provider. The court in that case explained that service tax is payable only on the amount actually charged for the service and not on the value of goods provided without consideration.

Service Tax Not Leviable on Employee Call free Allowance: CESTAT allows Bharti Airtel's Appeal

M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Goods &Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1107

The appellant, M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd., is engaged in providing telecommunication services and offers an "Airtel Employees Services Scheme" which includes a waiver of telephone charges up to a certain CFA limit. They argued that this waiver is a discount or concession for which no consideration flows from the employee to the company, and therefore, it should not be included in the value for calculating service tax. They relied on a previous final order passed by the same Bench in their favour.

A bench of Members S.S. Garg and P. AnjaniKumar, after analyzing the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, observed that for service tax to be levied, there must be a consideration flowing from the service recipient to the provider. In this case, the benefit accrued to the employees, not the appellant, and there was no such flow of consideration. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that 'goodwill' could be treated as taxable consideration, noting that there is no provision in service tax law to amortize goodwill for valuation purposes and the adjudicating authority failed to quantify its value.

The Tribunal also found the Revenue's method of computation to be flawed, based on presumptions rather than hard facts, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of taxation.

Relief for HPCL: CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit on HR Plates and Sheets Used for Repair and Maintenance of Storage Tanks

M/s Hindustan Petroleum vs Commissioner Of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1108

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd,appellant-assessee, claimed Cenvat Credit on HR Plates and HR Sheets under tariff headings 7208 3710, 7208 3730, and 7208 5210, which were not defined as inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The goods were also held ineligible as inputs for capital goods since the storage tank was not considered goods under Rule 2 of CCR 2004.

The two member bench comprising A.K Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) heard both parties and reviewed the records. It observed that the key issue was whether the goods qualified as inputs under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, or as capital goods under Rule 2(a).

The tribunal noted that Rule 2(k) allowed goods to be treated as inputs if they were used as parts or components in manufacturing final products. It found that it was necessary to determine whether the goods were used in the manufacture of capital goods or only for their repair and maintenance.

CESTAT Upholds Inclusion of Freight in Excise Valuation for FOR Sales, Remands Ramco Cements Case for Recalculation

The Ramco Cements Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1109

The case involved M/s The Ramco Cements Ltd., which was in appeal against two separate Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur. The department had demanded excise duty of over Rs. 11.6 crore, along with interest and penalties, for the period from 2007 to 2013.

The core issue was that Ramco Cements, while selling cement on a FOR destination basis (where the seller bears the cost of freight), was paying excise duty on a value that excluded the transportation charges collected from customers. The department contended that this was incorrect as per Section 4(3)(c)(iii) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

The CESTAT bench, comprising Mr. A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member), sided with the department's primary contention. They agreed that in cases of FOR destination sales, the place of removal is the customer's premises, and consequently, the freight element is not excludable from the assessable value for the purpose of determining excise duty.

Relief to Fox International Channels Case: CESTAT Upholds dismissal of Appeal as Review Order is Time-Barred

Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax vs M/s FoxInternational Channels Us Inc

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1110

The case involved M/s Fox International Channels, the respondent assessee which had paid excess service tax amounting to Rs. 61,91,667 for the period October 2015 to March 2016. After filing for a refund, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the payment via an Order-in-Original dated March 31, 2017.

The CESTAT bench, comprising Mr. S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) and Mr. P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), agreed with the respondent. The tribunal noted that the order was passed on March 31, 2017, and marked to the reviewing authority on April 10, 2017. Following the legal precedent, the limitation period for the review order commenced on April 10, 2017, and expired on July 10, 2017. Since the review order was issued on October 9, 2017, it was beyond the prescribed three-month period under Section 84 of the Act.

The CESTAT concluded that there was no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)' order. The tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, thereby upholding the decision to grant the refund to Fox International Channels.

CENVAT Credit on Lease Termination Penalty Refundable, Nexus Theory Inapplicable: CESTAT

M/s Carnival Support Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner ofCGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1111

M/s Carnival Support Services India Pvt. Ltd., the assessee filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.08.2018. The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim for ₹3,95,670/-, which was the service tax paid on additional rent for the early termination of a Leave & Licence agreement for its office premises.

The CESTAT bench, comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member), sided with the appellant. The tribunal agreed that the 2012 changes had expressly dispensed with the 'nexus' requirement for such refunds. It followed the settled jurisprudence that the department cannot deny a credit at the refund stage unless it has first initiated a separate recovery proceeding under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.

The tribunal found that since the original adjudicating authority had already accepted that renting the property had a nexus with the appellant's services, the tax paid on the termination charge was also part of the eligible input credit. Accordingly, the CESTAT allowed the appeal and modified the Commissioner (Appeals)' order, directing the department to refund the amount of ₹3,95,670/- along with applicable interest within two months.

Commissioner must examine Factual matrix of service of an order before Dismissal of Time barred Appeal: CESTAT remands Sri Balaji Electricals Case

Sri Balaji Electricals vs Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy- GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1112

M/s Sri Balaji Electricals, the assessee appellant filed an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal dated 11.07.2024. The appeal challenged the dismissal of their original appeal against an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 25.03.2022. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appellant's appeal solely on the grounds of limitation, without examining its merits. The appellant argued they were delayed in receiving the original order, a fact supported by a tenant's undertaking, which should have been considered when calculating the limitation period.

The two member bench of Mr. A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member), found merit in the appellant's contention. The tribunal agreed that the Commissioner (Appeals) indeed lacks the power to condone a delay beyond three months. However, it held that before reaching this conclusion, the Commissioner was obligated to first examine the statutory provisions on service of notices and the factual matrix to determine the actual date the appellant received the order. The failure to conduct this preliminary examination was a procedural flaw.

Accordingly, the CESTAT allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)' order. The matter was sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to properly examine the facts and determine the correct limitation period before deciding on the maintainability of the appeal.

CESTAT Sets Aside Service Tax Demand on Fixed Facility Charges, allows Inox Air Products Appeal

M/s. Inox Air Products Private Ltd. vs Commissioner of GST andCentral Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1113

The assessee, M/s Inox Air Products Private Ltd. filed an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal dated 21.12.2015. The appeal challenged the confirmation of a demand for service tax on FFC charges for the period from April 2012 to March 2013. The department's demand for service tax on FFC charges. These charges were for providing Vacuum Insulated Storage Tanks (VIST) at the customers' premises for storing liquid gases. The department classified this as a 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service', arguing that the transfer of effective possession and control over the tanks was absent.

The tribunal noted that since the appellant was already discharging excise duty on these charges, and the Board Circular is binding on the department, the FFC could not be treated as consideration for a separate 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service'. This position had been affirmed by the tribunal in the appellant's own case for an earlier period.

Accordingly, the CESTAT set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

Permanent Assignment of Film Copyrights and In-Film Branding Agreements Executed Before Oct 1, 2014 Are Not Taxable Under Service Tax: CESTAT

Commissioner of Central Tax vs M/s. Rockline Entertainments 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1114

Rockline Entertainments Pvt. Ltd., a Bengaluru-based film production company, was issued a show cause notice for the period from April 2011 to September 2015, alleging non-payment of service tax on income from in-film branding, assignment of film rights, and related activities.

The two-member bench comprising P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) examined the agreements and observed that the copyright assignments were made for the lifetime of the copyright and were irrevocable. The tribunal observed that such assignments amounted to permanent transfers and could not be treated as services liable to tax.

The tribunal further observed that the in-film branding agreement was executed before October 1, 2014, when the sale of space or time for advertisements in cinematographic films was still covered under the negative list. Referring to the Kerala High Court decision in Manjilas Food Tech (P) Ltd., the bench explained that the 2014 amendment expanding the scope of taxable advertisements was unconstitutional and beyond the powers of Parliament.

'Input' Not 'Capital Good' under Cenvat Rules: CESTAT Upholds CENVAT Credit on Dredger

M/s Dredging Corporation of India vs Commissioner of Central TaxVisakhapatnam-GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1115

The assessee, M/s Dredging Corporation of India, a Public Sector Undertaking, which had filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 07.01.2016. The appeal challenged the disallowance of CENVAT credit amounting to over Rs. 33 crore paid on the import of a 'Self Propelled Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger'.

The core issue was the classification of the dredger for the purpose of availing credit. The department, upheld by the adjudicating authority, rejected the claim, arguing that the dredger was a capital asset and therefore did not fall within the definition of 'inputs' under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. They contended that even if not explicitly listed, it should be treated as a 'capital good' and thus excluded.

The CESTAT bench, comprising Mr. A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member), sided with the appellant. The tribunal agreed with the principle of strict interpretation of taxing statutes, emphasizing that the term 'capital goods' in Rule 2(k) must be understood in the context of the Cenvat Rules.

No Scientific Test or Documentary Proof to Establish Foreign Origin of Dry Dates: CESTAT Sets Aside Confiscation

M/s Nitin Trading Company vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1116

Nitin Trading Company, the appellant, is engaged in the trading of dry fruits and other grocery items in Lucknow. A search was conducted by the Customs (Preventive) authorities on 18 November 2019 at the premises of Chandra Cold Storage, where 42 bags of dry dates weighing 2,100 kg were found and seized. The department claimed that the dry dates were of foreign origin and had been imported in violation of the Customs Act, 1962.

The single-member bench comprising P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) observed that the department failed to conduct any proper inquiry or obtain scientific proof to establish that the goods were of foreign origin.

The tribunal observed that the testing laboratory had categorically stated its inability to identify the country of origin and that the traders’ opinions, based only on visual inspection, had no evidentiary value. The tribunal explained that mere assumptions or suspicions cannot be treated as proof of smuggling.

ER-1 Return Qualifies as a Valid Duty-Paying Document under Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules: CESTAT

M/s Jakson Engineers Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1117

Jakson Engineers Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of solar power generating systems and other related products under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

The two-member bench comprising Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) and Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) examined the ER-1 returns and observed that the appellant had indeed paid excess duty during June and July 2016 and the fact of such payment was not disputed by the department.

The tribunal observed that the ER-1 return contained all necessary details, such as assessable value, duty payable, registration number, and clearance particulars, as required under the proviso to Rule 9(2). The tribunal held that the ER-1 return qualifies as a valid duty-paying document and that the re-credit based on such return was legally permissible.

AA Relied On Wikipedia Instead Of Expert Evidence To Classify Epoxy Resin Under DFIA: CESTAT Quashes Demand

M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1118

Lasco Chemie Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, imported epoxy resin under Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) licences purchased from leather exporters based in Kanpur. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the company misused the DFIA licences by declaring epoxy resin as impregnating resin, which was the only resin permitted for import under those licences.

The two-member bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) examined the records and observed that the adjudicating authority had placed heavy reliance on Wikipedia to conclude that epoxy resin and impregnating resin are distinct materials.

The tribunal observed that Wikipedia is an open-source platform subject to public editing and cannot be treated as expert or authoritative evidence for determining classification. It pointed out that while the CLRI’s letter stated that epoxy resin was not used in leather finishing, the CRCL’s test report in another case confirmed that epoxy resin finds use as an impregnation resin.

Tenant’s SVLDRS Payment Satisfies 7.5% Pre-Deposit Requirement for Service Tax on Rental Income: CESTAT Remands Appeal

M/s Bommidala Trading Company Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST& Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1119

Bommidala Trading Company Pvt Ltd, appellant-assessee, had filed an appeal against the OIA dated 08.01.2015, which the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed solely for non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit, without considering the merits of the case.

The two member bench comprising Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K.Jyotishi (Technical Member) heard both parties and examined the records. It observed that the key issue was whether the appellant had made the 7.5% pre-deposit for the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

The tribunal noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed petitioners to settle the disputed service tax under the SVLDRS scheme. M/s Spencer’s Retail Ltd had utilized this scheme and paid part of the service tax on rentals, including those paid to the appellant. This payment effectively satisfied the pre-deposit requirement.

Mismatch Between Income Tax and ST-3 Returns: CESTAT Upholds Service Tax Demand for Unexplained Discrepancy

M/s. Hastha Alternate Building Technology and Research vsCommissioner of Central Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1120

Hastha Alternate Building Technology and Research Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee, provided taxable ‘Architect Services’ during the relevant period. Examination of its income tax returns revealed that for the financial year 2014-15, it declared total income of Rs.54,95,650/- from services rendered but reported only Rs.1,75,720/- in ST-3 returns, resulting in a short payment of service tax of Rs.6,57,543/-.

A single member bench of D.M.Misra (Judicial Member) heard both parties and examined the records. It noted that the original demand notice sought recovery of Rs. 31,56,964/- for 2014-15 to 2017-18, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later limited the demand to October 2014 to March 2015. The assessee contended that the Department had not proved suppression or mis-declaration of facts to invoke the extended period.

The appellate tribunal observed that the assessee had declared lower gross receipts in the ST-3 returns for FY 2014-15 compared to the Income Tax Returns and had failed to provide any reasonable explanation or supporting Chartered Accountant certificate. The IT returns were never submitted, and the 26AS statement could not justify the discrepancy.

Relief for Maruti Suzuki: CESTAT Rules Education Cess Payable on Net Service Tax after Deducting R&D Cess

Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs Commissioner of Central Exciseand Service Tax

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1121

Maruti Suzuki India Limited,appellant-assessee, manufactured engine and transmission parts for two- and four-wheeler vehicles. During an audit of its records by the Accountant General, Haryana, for 2005-06 to 2007-08, it was found that the assessee had received ‘Consulting Engineering Services’ from M/s Suzuki Motor Corporation Japan, which had no office in India. The assessee was therefore liable to pay service tax as the recipient of these services.

The two member bench comprising S.S.Garg (Judicial Member) and P.Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) examined the submissions of both parties, the records, and the decisions relied upon by the appellant. It found that the issue had already been settled in the assessee’s favour by this tribunal in Final Order No. 60667/2024 dated 13.12.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 58092 of 2013 [2025 (1) TMI 78 CESTAT Chandigarh].

The tribunal noted that for financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Commissioner, in Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2017, had allowed the assessee’s claim, and the department had accepted the order without filing any appeal. The subsequent Order-in-Original dated 23.03.2021 also recorded that the earlier order had been accepted by the Committee of Chief Commissioners.

Export Valuation Based on CRCL Moisture Content: CESTAT Rules Transaction Value in Invoice and BRC Must Be Accepted

M/s Sri Sainath Industry Private Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1122

Sri Sainath Industry Private Ltd., appellant-assessee, was engaged in the export of iron ore under a contract that specified parameters such as Fe content and moisture percentage, which determined the final price. Since these values were not available at the time of export, the assessment was made provisionally.

It held that the export value had to be determined in line with Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules, and unless there were valid reasons to doubt the transaction value, it could not be disregarded.

The two member bench comprising Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K.Jyotishi (Technical Member) found that the Adjudicating Authority had no grounds to reject the transaction value shown in the final invoices, which were duly supported by the BRC. There was no evidence of any extra remittance for the export, and the only variation related to the moisture content, which the CRCL found slightly higher than the declared value. As the contract clearly provided that the parameters would be based on the CIQ report, and the final price and invoices were accordingly finalised, there was no justification for ignoring the transaction value.

S. 113(h)(i) Customs Act Applies Only When Goods Have Actually Entered For Exportation: CESTAT

M/s. Avasarala Technologies Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1123

Avasarala Technologies Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in the export of engineering equipment, filed three shipping bills dated March 11, 2013, for the export of parts of rubber processing machines.

During the examination, the customs authorities found a shortage of goods in two of the shipping bills. Only fifteen sets of items were found instead of the forty-three sets declared, resulting in a shortage of twenty-eight sets.

The single-member bench of Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) observed that the facts were undisputed and that the discrepancy occurred due to a communication gap between the dispatch and accounts departments. The tribunal explained that the Central Excise authorities had verified that the missing goods were still under process in the factory and had not been diverted elsewhere.

Legal Uncertainty Over Service Tax Liability for Municipal Council Renting Out Properties: CESTAT Quashes Extended Limitation

Municipal Council vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods &Service Tax, Ludhiana 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1124

The Municipal Council, Fatehgarh Churian, the appellant, was engaged in providing taxable services under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property Services" as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The two-member bench comprising S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) examined the facts and observed that the demand pertained to a period when the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property was under dispute and subject to conflicting judicial opinions.

The tribunal explained that during this period, there was genuine interpretational doubt, as courts across the country had given differing views on the validity of the levy. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I, the bench observed that when an issue involves interpretation or conflicting judgments, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

No Transfer of 'Effective Control': CESTAT rules Medical Equipment Leasing as Service, Not Deemed Sale, upholds Service Tax Demand

M/s Healthware Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise &Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1125

The appellants, engaged in procuring and leasing out expensive medical equipment to hospitals across the country, entered into an agreement with the hospitals for leasing the said equipment and paid the Sales tax/VAT in the bills raised to the hospitals. They considered the said transaction taxable under State VAT Act as deemed sale because it involved transfer of right to use the goods.

In light of the Supreme Court judgement, the bench examined the terms and conditions of the agreement. As a result, it was concluded that the agreement is providing the hospitals the right to use equipment in terms of agreement but not an absolute legal right to use and operate at their own will, making it a classic case of hiring of equipment on need basis and nothing beyond.

As all the conditions could not be satisfied to consider this transaction as a transaction of deemed sale, the appeal was found to be devoid of merits leading to its dismissal.

Wrongly Paid Service Tax under SEZ Act: CESTAT Remands Claim for Fresh Examination and Directs Refund

M/s Applabs Technologies vs Commissioner Of Central Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1126

The appellant, Applabs Technologies Pvt Ltd., filed a refund application dated January 1, 2012 claiming exemption for an amount of Rs. 1,68,04,134/- in respect of specified services used with respect to authorized operations in the Special Economic Zone from April, 2011 to September, 2011.

The Bench, composed of Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member), was of the opinion that in absence of any specified procedure, the matter is to be examined in terms of refund application with respect to substantive provisions under the SEZ Act and Rules.

It was further stated that the services i.e. transaction fee, requires to be examined from two angles: firstly, whether it is covered under the broad category of Management Consultancy Services (MCS) and secondly, whether the same has been approved by UAC as being eligible service for use in the authorized operation of the SEZ unit.

Used Machinery cannot be imported under EPCG Scheme: CESTAT Finds No Fraud, Sets Aside Penalty

M/s. Angel Starch & Foods Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1127

M/s. Angel Starch & Foods Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of starch, imported machinery including “Schugi Fleximix 160 Mix and Agglomerier Machine” and “MINOX Heating-Cooling Mixer” under the EPCG Scheme through Bill of Entry dated 3 September 2014.

After inspection, customs authorities found that the imported goods were second-hand machinery. Since the EPCG Scheme prohibits import of second-hand capital goods, the department alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation, resulting in confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The CESTAT noted that while the import of second-hand machinery under EPCG was indeed prohibited under the amended FTP, the record clearly showed that the EPCG authorization itself mentioned the year of manufacture as 1992. This, the Tribunal observed, supported the appellant’s claim of bona fide belief.

CENVAT Credit Need Not Be Reversed Under Rule 3(5B) For Inputs Or Sub-Assemblies Scrapped During Manufacturing: CESTAT

M/s Pricol Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1128

Pricol Limited, the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of oil pumps, speedometers, and printed circuit boards (PCBs) at its unit in Manesar, Haryana. During an audit, the department found that the appellant had written off raw materials, sub-assemblies, and finished goods as “scrapped inventory” in its books of accounts for the financial years 2010-11 to 2014-15.

The two-member bench comprising Justice S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that Rule 3(5B) applied only to inputs or capital goods written off before being put to use, and not to materials already used in manufacturing or at the sub-assembly stage.

The tribunal explained that the department had misapplied the CBEC Circular, which covered only inputs not utilized in production. It pointed out that the Chartered Accountant’s certificate confirmed that no input as such was written off, and the Principal Commissioner had rejected it without any contrary evidence.

Process of Battery Charging, Filling, and Packaging Amounts to Manufacture, No Service Tax Payable: CESTAT

M/s Eliza Power Industries vs The Commissioner of Central Excise Goods and Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1129

Eliza Power Industries, located in Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh, carried out job work for Eastman Auto and Power Ltd. involving charging and packaging of batteries. The appellant paid service tax on this activity believing it did not constitute manufacture.

The bench comprising Justice S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the processes carried out were identical to those in Exide Industries Ltd., where they were held to constitute manufacture.

It explained that incomplete batteries became finished, marketable goods and thus fell within the definition of manufacture. The Tribunal also found that the issue of unjust enrichment had not been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals).

CESTAT Classifies “Noil Silk Fabrics” under Natural Silk Fabrics, Rejects Department’s Classification under CTH 5007 1000

M/s. Lucky Goldstar Co. Limited vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1130

Lucky Goldstar Co. Ltd. and its director, Shri Manoranjan Mondal, had appealed against the order of the Commissioner ofCustoms (Appeals), Kolkata, which upheld confiscation of goods, denial of duty drawback, and penalties of Rs. 1 crore each.

The case originated from an investigation involving Eastern Silk Industries Ltd. (ESIL), a unit in the Falta SEZ, accused of misdeclaring silk fabric composition and overvaluing exports to claim excess drawback.

The tribunal explained that such conflicting findings could not conclusively prove the presence of 100 percent Noil Silk, which is necessary for classification under CTH 5007 1000. It pointed out that the department’s reclassification was unsustainable and that no misdeclaration or overvaluation had been established.

Service Tax Not Leviable on Training Programs Conducted with University: CESTAT

Centre for Entrepreneurship Development vs PrincipalCommissioner 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1131

CEDMAP conducts various computer courses such as BCA, DCA, and PGDCA in collaboration with M.P. Bhoj (Open) University, a university recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

The two-member bench comprising Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that CEDMAP was conducting educational programs leading to degrees and diplomas issued by a recognized university.

The tribunal explained that such programs were covered by the exemption provided under the law and could not be categorized as commercial training or coaching. It also observed that CEDMAP, being a state government undertaking established for public welfare and entrepreneurship development, could not be equated with private commercial coaching institutes.

Grant-in-Aid Received under Centrally Sponsored Schemes for Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Training Not Taxable: CESTAT

Centre for Entrepreneurship Development vs PrincipalCommissioner Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1132

The Centre for Entrepreneurship Development, Madhya Pradesh (CEDMAP), a state government undertaking, appealed against service tax demands confirmed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. The department claimed that the grants received from the Central and State Governments for implementing training programs were taxable consideration for services.

The two-member bench comprising Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that the grants were public funds utilized for welfare programs and not for any commercial activity.

The tribunal explained that under Rule 6(2)(vii) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, government subsidies and grants not directly affecting service value are excluded from tax.

No Evidence of Willful Suppression to Invoke Extended Limitation: CESTAT Allows Service Tax Appeal

M/s Globe Ground India Private Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1133

M/s Globe Ground India Private Ltd., the appellant, faced a demand for service tax, interest, and penalty upheld by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II), Delhi. The demand pertained to alleged non-payment of tax on imported services, non-reversal of Cenvat credit, and short payment of tax for the period 2014-15 to the first quarter of 2017-18.

Aggrieved by the order, the appellant approached the CESTAT. The appellant's primary contention was that the show cause notice, issued on 21.10.2019, was barred by limitation as it was served beyond the normal period. They argued that the Revenue had wrongly invoked the extended 5-year period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, as there was no wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax.

The tribunal stated that to invoke the extended period, the Revenue must demonstrate a 'positive act' of suppression or misstatement with the necessary 'mens rea' (intention to evade tax). Finding no such evidence on record, the bench concluded that the invocation of the extended period was unsustainable.

Clandestine Removal Based on Accounting Errors: CESTAT Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand for Lack of Evidence

M/s.Deo Ispat Alloys Limited vs Commissioner of C.G.S.T. andCentral Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1134

M/s. Deo Ispat Alloys Limited, the appellant-assessee and a manufacturer of Silico Manganese, faced a demand of Rs. 30,36,884 towards Excise Duty and an equivalent penalty. The Department alleged clandestine removal of goods totaling 536.54 MT across three instances in 2011 and 2013, based on discrepancies noticed in their ER-1 returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand and penalty, prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

The tribunal found that none of these criteria were met in the present case and held that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked, as the appellant had been in correspondence with the Department and had not suppressed any facts.

The single bench of K.Anpazhakan, Member Technical held that the demand for excise duty and penalty was unsustainable. It set aside the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) and allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Deo Ispat Alloys Limited.

Setback for Gabriel India Ltd: CESTAT Rules Assessment Was Regular, Not Provisional, Refund Denied

Gabriel India Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1135

The appellant, M/s Gabriel India Ltd., an importer of aluminium ingots, had followed a 'standard operating procedure' for 87 of its 88 imports. This involved depositing disputed customs duty 'under protest' pending a provisional assessment, which was later finalized, leading to a refund.

The dispute arose concerning a single bill of entry dated 13.12.2017. While the appellant paid the disputed duty of ₹ 3,21,650, its refund claim filed on 10.06.2019 was rejected by the original authority and the first appellate authority as time-barred. They held the assessment was finalized on 27.12.2017, well before the claim was made.

The single bench of Mr. C J Mathew (Member, Technical), after perusing the records, found that this particular bill of entry was not provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. Instead, it was a regular assessment under Section 17. The bench held that the purported date of 'finalization' was, in fact, the date of the regular assessment.

Spa Company Collected Service Tax but fails to Deposit: CESTAT Confirms ₹17.28 Lakh Tax Demand and Penalty

M/s Dream Spa Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise& CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1136

Dream Spa Enterprises, engaged in providing health club, fitness centre, and beauty treatment services, was accused of suppressing income and evading service tax for the period from September 2015 to June 2017.

The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) searched the premises of RDS Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. in December 2017, where month-wise daily sale sheets of Dream Spa Enterprises were recovered. The investigation revealed that Gufran Khan, a director of RDS Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., was also the proprietor of Dream Spa Enterprises.

The single-member bench comprising Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) observed that the proprietor had admitted ownership of the recovered documents and the suppression of receipts. The tribunal explained that the appellant’s plea of ignorance was not credible since the proprietor was also a company director.

Once Ex-Factory Price List Is Approved, Dept Barred from Reassessing Valuation for Same Period: CESTAT

M/s. Mangalam Timber Products Limited vs Commissioner, CentralExcise and Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1137

Mangalam Timber Products Ltd., the appellant, is a manufacturer of Medium Density Fibre Board (MDF) under Chapter 44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The company cleared a small portion of its goods to independent buyers from the factory and transferred the rest to depots across India.

The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the Assistant Collector had already examined the same issue in 1991 and approved the price lists based on ex-factory prices after verifying supporting documents, including the Chartered Accountant’s certification of transportation and depot expenses.

It explained that the ex-factory prices were found genuine and no evidence was produced by the department to prove otherwise. The tribunal pointed out that since the Assistant Collector’s order had attained finality, the department had no authority to reopen valuation or raise fresh demands for the same period.

SCN Issued Without Mandatory Pre-Consultation Under CBEC Guidelines Is Invalid: CESTAT

M/s. SIS Limited vs Pr. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1138

SIS Limited, formerly known as Security and Intelligence Services India Ltd., is registered for providing Security Agency, Manpower Supply, and Business Support Services. A show cause notice dated October 18, 2019, was issued for the period 2014-15 to 2016-17, proposing to recover Rs. 6.79 crore, including disallowed CENVAT credit and short-paid service tax.

After adjudication, the Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Patna-I, dropped most of the demand and confirmed Rs. 34,63,730 with interest and penalty. The company appealed before the Tribunal.

The bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the 2017 circular made pre-consultation mandatory for all demands above Rs. 50 lakh, without any exception for suppression.

Appellate Authority Cannot Decide Time-Barred Appeal on Merits: CESTAT Remands Customs Classification of Toyota Kriloskar

Commissioner of customs vs M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1139

The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, the appellant, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) which had upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision. The dispute concerned the classification of 'Side Outer Panels for Motor Vehicle' imported by M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., the respondent.

The bench comprising Mr. P. Dinesha (Member-Judicial) and Mr. M. Ajit Kumar (Member-Technical) held that the issue of whether the appeal was time-barred was a threshold question that the First Appellate Authority ought to have decided first.

Relying on judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Tribunal stated that an appellate authority commits an illegality by deciding the merits of a case without first addressing the preliminary issue of limitation. The Tribunal observed that the proper function of an appellate court is to correct errors of the court below, not to usurp its jurisdiction.

Win for ITC Limited: CESTAT sets aside Departmental Order on rule 16(2) of Central Excise Rules demand

M/s.ITC Limited vs The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1140

M/s ITC Limited (SBU-Packaging and Printing), the appellant, faced a demand of Rs.14,03,964/- with interest and penalty under Rule 16(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai through Order-in-Appeal No.37/2017 dated 09.02.2017. The issue pertained to duty credit taken on returned finished goods that were later sold as scrap during 2012-13.

Aggrieved by the order, the appellant approached the CESTAT. The appellant's primary contention was that they had carried out manufacturing operations including regluing and repairs on the returned goods before clearing them as scrap. They argued that the dismantling and salvaging process was part of manufacturing, and there was no suppression of facts to justify invoking the extended limitation period.

The tribunal stated that when an issue relates to interpretation on which two views are possible, the authorities may dispute the view entertained by the appellant, but this alone is insufficient to conclude there was suppression. Finding no evidence of willful suppression, the bench concluded that the invocation of the extended period was unsustainable.

Revenue cannot Retain Illegally recovered Tax without Interest: CESTAT allows Service Tax Appeal

M/s Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization vs Commr. of CGST& CX, Ranchi 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1141

M/s Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, the appellant, provides services under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1948. The dispute arose from a Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11, demanding service tax of Rs. 50,89,14,218/- on the ground that its services fell under "Banking and other Financial Services".

The Tribunal initially affirmed the demand. However, while the appellant's appeal was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, the department recovered a total of Rs. 277,59,48,831/- in two separate installments during 2021 and 2022. The matter was subsequently remanded to the Tribunal, which vide its order dated 03/08/2022, allowed the appellant's appeal and held that the demand was not legally sustainable, directing a refund of the recovered amount.

The two member bench of R Muralidhar, Member (Judicial), and K Anpazhakan , Member (Technical) observed that the amounts recovered during the pendency of the High Court appeal were, in retrospect, illegal recoveries as the final order established that no service tax was payable. Following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that the Revenue cannot unjustly retain the assessee's money without paying interest.

Time Barred SCN Beyond Statutory One-Year Period: CESTAT allows Cum-Duty Benefit and sets aside Time-Barred Excise Demand

Poorna Graphics vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1142

The appeals arose from two orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore, confirming demands of ₹4,54,082 and ₹3,15,109 for different periods between May 2010 and May 2011. Poorna Graphics, engaged in offset printing and manufacture of printed paper tags under Chapter Heading 4821 10 10, had paid excise duty at 4% but failed to adopt the increased rate of 8% introduced through Notification No. 17/2009-CE dated 7 July 2009.

The two-member Bench comprising Mr. P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) observed that the assessee’s omission to pay the enhanced rate of duty was an admitted fact. However, since the department issued the SCN after the limitation period, the demand for May 2010 was held to be time-barred.

However, in respect of the second period, the Tribunal held that Poorna Graphics was liable to pay the duty but was entitled to the benefit of cum-duty price as per the Shri Chakra Tyres Ltd. decision.

Interest Payable on Differential Duty Even if Paid Before Finalisation of Provisional Assessment: CESTAT

M/s. ITI Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise Customs andService Tax (Appeals)

2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1143

The appeal was filed by M/s ITI Ltd., Palakkad, manufacturer of telecommunication equipment, against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin. The issue concerned the company’s liability to pay interest when differential duty was paid before finalisation of provisional assessment for the financial year 2001–02.

ITI Ltd. had sought provisional assessment owing to price escalation clauses in its contracts with the Department of Telecommunications (DOT). Upon finalisation, it was found that ITI had paid excess duty of ₹6,33,121. However, the department issued a show cause notice demanding interest of ₹68,07,274 under Section 11AB for differential duty payments and also proposed to deny part of the refund and credit the remaining amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

The CESTAT Bench examined Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and noted that interest on differential duty is compensatory in nature, payable for the period between removal of goods and actual payment of duty. Relying on Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that the statutory scheme requires payment of interest on differential duty irrespective of whether it was paid before or after the finalisation of assessment.

CENVAT Credit on Inputs from 100% Export-Oriented-Unit Allowable: CESTAT

M/s. Aditya Auto Products & Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. vsCommissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1144

The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of manual and power window regulators and their components, had availed CENVAT credit of duties on goods procured from its EOU unit. The department alleged that the company wrongly availed excess credit of additional duty of customs, education cess, and secondary higher education cess, contrary to Rule 3(7)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, which was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Quoting the earlier decision in Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that Rule 3(7)(a) restricts credit only on the duty levied under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and does not extend to levies such as education cess under the Finance Act.

Accordingly, the CESTAT Bench concluded that Aditya Auto Products was eligible for full CENVAT credit on inputs received from its EOU unit. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, setting aside the lower authority’s order.

CESTAT upholds Valuation of Physician Samples Based on Transaction Value under Section 4 of Central Excise Act

M/s. Srushti Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner ofCentral Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1145

Srushti Pharmaceuticals, engaged in manufacturing physician samples for other pharmaceutical companies under a principal-to-principal contract, discharged excise duty based on transaction value under Section 4.

The Tribunal observed that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries (supra), which held that valuation under Section 4 applies where goods are sold on a principal-to-principal basis, irrespective of the buyer’s subsequent use. The Bench emphasized that what the distributors ultimately did with the samples was “extraneous and not a relevant consideration” for determining assessable value.

Rejecting the Department’s stand, the Bench held that the show cause notices were based on an incorrect premise and that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in absence of any suppression or fraud.

Trade, Cash, Turnover, and Other Discounts Actually Passed on to Buyers are Permissible Deductions in Excise Valuation: CESTAT

M/s. Greenply Industries Limited vs Commissioner of CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1146

Greenply Industries Ltd. (Kriparampur Unit), the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of plywood and veneer under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The company sold its products both from the factory gate and through depots across India.

The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) heard both sides and examined the records. The tribunal observed that the appellant had granted various types of discounts as part of its trade policy and that these discounts were known to customers before or at the time of removal.

It explained that valuation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, read with Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, allows exclusion of trade discounts actually passed on to buyers. The tribunal pointed out that the invoices on record reflected several discounts and that a Chartered Accountant’s certificate confirmed they were genuinely allowed.

Commercial Invoices Without SAD Endorsement Still Eligible for Refund under Notification: CESTAT

M/s. N.R. Colours Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1147

N.R. Colours Ltd., the appellant, imported certain chemicals during 2013 and paid 4% SAD. The company later claimed a refund of Rs. 3,10,795 under the said notification. The refund was rejected by the adjudicating authority, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on the ground that some sales invoices lacked the mandatory endorsement stating that no credit of additional duty would be admissible.

The single-member bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) relied on the Larger Bench decision in Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [2014 (8) TMI 214 – CESTAT Mumbai (LB)]. The Larger Bench had held that a trader-importer who paid SAD and subsequently discharged VAT or sales tax on resale would be eligible for refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, even if the commercial invoices did not carry the endorsement, provided all other conditions were met.

Following the Larger Bench ruling, the Chennai Bench held that the absence of endorsement could not defeat the refund claim when other substantive requirements were fulfilled. The tribunal pointed out that judicial discipline required following the Larger Bench decision.

Relief for Dell India: CESTAT Rules Marketing and Support Services to Foreign Affiliates Constitute Export of Services

Dell India Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner of Central Excise andService Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1148

Dell India Pvt. Ltd., engaged in marketing and promotional activities in India for Dell Global BV and Dell Asia Pacific, Malaysia, received payment on a cost-plus basis in convertible foreign exchange.

The two-member bench comprising P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) observed that the issue was already settled in Arcelor Mittal Stainless (I) Pvt. Ltd.

The tribunal explained that services rendered to a foreign entity for which payment is received in foreign exchange qualify as exports. It pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the show cause notice by questioning credit eligibility.

Relief for Indian Acrylic Ltd: CESTAT Rules Subscription and Membership Fees Paid to Foreign Associations Not OIDAR Services

M/s Indian Acrylic Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise andService Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1149

Indian Acrylic Limited, a manufacturer of acrylic fiber and yarn, paid membership fees to foreign associations. The department viewed these payments as consideration for OIDAR services and demanded service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.

Two show-cause notices were issued, covering the period from April 2007 to March 2010, seeking Rs. 97,872, along with interest and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld them, leading to the company’s appeal before the Tribunal.

The two-member bench comprising S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that there was no evidence showing the appellant accessed any online database.

Relief for AGS Health: CESTAT Rules Registration Not Mandatory for Refund of Unutilized CENVAT Credit on Exported Services

M/s. A.G.S. Health Private Limited vs Commissioner of GST andCentral Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1150

AGS Health Private Limited, the appellant, is a 100% export-oriented unit engaged in providing medical billing, insurance verification, medical coding, and related back-office support services to healthcare providers in the United States.

The two-member bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Judicial Member) observed that the issue of refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for periods prior to registration had already been decided in earlier cases such as mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal explained that in the absence of any statutory provision requiring registration for availing or refunding CENVAT credit, denial of refund on that basis was not justified.

The tribunal pointed out that the appellant had exported services and duly filed the refund claim after obtaining registration. Since the law does not impose any such precondition, the refund could not be denied. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief as per law.

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