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

Extended Limitation cannot Be Invoked for Audit-Based Demand: CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty Demand against Delphi Automotive

Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of CentralExcise, Goods 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1351

The appeal was filed by Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of catalytic converters and canisters falling under Chapter Heading 8421300 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

The dispute arose after the Department conducted an audit for the relevant period from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2005, during which it observed that the appellant was availing a State VAT deferment scheme under Rule 69 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003, allowing retention of 50 percent of the sales tax collected from its customers.

The Tribunal held that the Department produced no evidence of suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, which is a mandatory requirement for invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It affirmed the settled principle that extended limitation cannot be invoked for demands arising out of audit scrutiny.

Diversion of Export Goods to Domestic Market Not Proven: CESTAT sets aside Excise & Customs Demands against SEZ Manufacturer

Bhavin R Shah vs C.C.E. & S.T.-RAJKOT 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1352

The Bench of Judicial Member Somesh Arora held that the department failed to establish diversion of the goods. The Tribunal observed that the cancellation letter, bearing acknowledgement by the jurisdictional Superintendent, was an official document, and if the department doubted its authenticity, it was duty-bound to verify it by recording the officer’s statement or producing evidence of forgery or manipulation.

The Tribunal noted that no such steps were taken. The absence of any stock discrepancy, the absence of any identified buyer of the alleged diverted goods, and the lack of any independent corroboration of clandestine removal further weakened the department’s case.

The Tribunal described the investigation as “half-hearted and haphazard” and held that documentary evidence involving departmental officers cannot be brushed aside merely on assumptions or later-recorded statements.

Right to Interest Affirmed: CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on ₹5 Cr Investigation Deposit to KLJ Plasticizers

KLJ Plasticizers Ltd vs C.C. – Kandla 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1353

The appellant, KLJ Plasticizers Ltd. had deposited ₹5 crore during a customs investigation that alleged duty evasion on the ground that the actual consumption of inputs was lower than the norms prescribed under the Standard Input Output Norms (SION). A show cause notice was issued, adjudication followed, and the matter ultimately reached the Tribunal, which held that once SION norms are fixed and export obligations are fulfilled, duty cannot be demanded on the basis of actual consumption.

The matter was decided by Judicial Member, Somesh Arora, who while addressing the question of jurisdiction and held that a Single Member Bench is competent to adjudicate appeals involving interest disputes, as interest is neither duty, fine, nor penalty, and therefore falls outside the monetary and subject-matter exclusions prescribed under Section 129C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.

On merits, the Bench held that the sum of ₹5 crore was a revenue deposit made during investigation and not a duty refund governed by Section 27 or Section27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal reasoned that deposits made during investigation stand on a different footing from statutory refunds and are governed by judicially established principles of compensation.

Entity Not Recognized as Manufacturer or Buyer Cannot Claim Excise Duty Refund Regardless of Who Paid: CESTAT

M/s GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute vsCommissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1354

GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute (Appellant) had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Government of Karnataka to run an ambulance service called "Arogya Kavacha."

The bench comprising S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), rejected the appeal and upheld the rejection of the refund claim.

The Tribunal observed that the fundamental requirement for claiming a refund is eligibility under the Central Excise Act and the specific conditions of the exemption notification. The tribunal observed that the appellant was neither the manufacturer nor the buyer where the vehicles were registered in the name of the District Health & Family Welfare Officers, Govt. of Karnataka, making the Government the true owner/buyer.

Misuse of Signed Blank Annexure-A by Third Party cannot attract Liability without Evidence: CESTAT Quashes Penalty against CHA Manager

Mr. M.K. Raja Mohammed vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1355

The Tribunal held that there was no evidence of his knowledge, intent, or active involvement in the mis-declaration of goods, nor any monetary benefit received.

The Appellant, M.K. Raja Mohammed, Manager of a CHA firm, known as M/s Anisha Overseas, filed a Customs Appeal no. C/41683/2015 to condemn the Order-in-Appeal No. 28/2015 dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Tiruchirappalli, setting aside the penalties imposed upon him under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Tribunal consisted of Technical Member, Vasa Seshagiri Rao, heard and reviewed the matter filed by the Appellant.

Revenue Sharing with Doctors and Diagnostic Partners Not Taxable as BSS: CESTAT Sets Aside Service Tax Demand

Om Savitri Jindal Charitable Society vs Commissioner of CentralExcise, Goods &Service Tax, Rohtak 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1357

Om Savitri Jindal Charitable Society (appellant) registered under 'Health Service' and 'Renting of Immovable Property Service', had agreements with DSPs like Lal Pathlabs Pvt Ltd for providing diagnostic services in the hospital.

The tribunal observed that the contracts clearly showed a sharing of revenue, with no stipulation of payment of any service charges by the DSPs or Doctors to the hospitals. The tribunal noted that transactions between contracted parties on a principal-to-principal basis were not to be treated as service.

The bench held that the service was provided by the DSPs to the appellant as the Hospital provided healthcare services and the diagnostic services were an integral part of this. The tribunal observed that the mere provision of a building and basic amenities did not qualify as 'support service' for running a business and these facilities merely enabled the DSPs to provide services to the hospital.

Customs cannot Re-Confiscate Mercedes Car citing Import Misdeclaration when Subsequent Buyer is Unaware of Allegation: CESTAT

Watermark Systems (India) Private Limited vs PrincipalCommissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1358

The Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) examined the earlier adjudication order and noted that the car had already been subjected to confiscation and released on payment of fine.

The Tribunal examined the earlier Order-in-Original and observed that the vehicle had already undergone confiscation proceedings and had been released on payment of fine. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Suchita Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) New Delhi (2015), held that once goods are confiscated and redeemed, a second round of confiscation on the same facts is not permissible.

The Tribunal further observed that for imposing a penalty under Section 112(a) or 112(b), the department must establish that the person had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation.

VAT/CST Incentive Not Additional Consideration and Not Part of Assessable Value: CESTAT Holds Reimbursement cannot be Included u/s 4

M/s Vasudha Pharma Chem Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central TaxVisakhapatnam - GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1359

The dispute arose when the department issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellant, filed by Vasudha Pharma Chem Limited, proposing to add VAT/CST incentives to the transaction value of excisable goods cleared by the appellant, alleging that the reimbursements constituted additional consideration flowing from the buyer to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the incentives did not arise out of any contractual or commercial relationship between the appellant and its buyers, nor were they in any manner related to the price at which the goods were sold.

The Tribunal held that for an amount to be included in the transaction value under Section 4, it must be paid or payable “by the buyer” or “on behalf of the buyer,” directly or indirectly, in connection with the sale of goods. Since the VAT/CST reimbursements were not paid by the buyers, had no nexus with any buyer, and were independently granted by the Government, they could not be treated as additional consideration.

DGFT issues EODC against Imported Cars: CESTAT rules Customs cannot Demand duty Once obligation Discharged and Certified

Interglobe Enterprises Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, NewDelhi 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1360

The Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) examined the DGFT’s issuance of the EODC and noted that the authority competent to mandate and monitor export obligation under the Foreign Trade Policy is the DGFT and not Customs.

The Tribunal observed that once the DGFT has issued the EODC after verification of records, Customs cannot dispute the fulfilment of export obligation or initiate recovery.

The Tribunal held that the appellant had completed the export obligation to the satisfaction of the DGFT and that the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority was contrary to the settled legal position. It further held that the department could not demand duty or interest once the export obligation was discharged and certified.

Failure of Due Diligence Not Enough to Invoke Extended Period for CENVAT Demand: CESTAT Gives Relief to Krishna Art Silk

Krishna Art Silk Cloth Pvt Limited vs Commissioner of CentralExcise & Service Tax, Surat 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1361

The appeals were filed by Krishna Art Silk Cloth Private Limited and its Director, arising out of proceedings initiated after the Central Goods and Services Tax authorities found that the company had availed Cenvat credit on grey fabrics supplied through merchants and traders during February 2004 to February 2005. During audit and verification of ER-1 returns, the department concluded that the credit was availed on invoices issued by non-existent or bogus manufacturers of grey fabrics.

The Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha held that while the appellant had not taken adequate steps to verify the authenticity of the duty-paid inputs, this lapse did not automatically justify the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the case was factually identical to Prayagraj Dyeing and Printing Mills (supra), where it was held that extended limitation is unavailable in the absence of material showing that the assessee was a party to the underlying fraud.

The Tribunal observed that invoices issued by manufacturers later found untraceable are voidable documents, not forged documents, and transactions based on them may still confer the protection available to a “holder in due course for valuable consideration.”

Mobilization Advances Not Taxable Prior to POT Rules, 2011: CESTAT sets aside Service Tax Demand

M/s NCC Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1362

The Bench comprising A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) examined Rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 and noted that Explanation 1 specifically treats advances as taxable only from the date the Rules came into force.

The Tribunal held that prior to 01.03.2011, receipt of mobilization advance could not be considered as the date of provision of any taxable service, nor could the amount be treated as consideration for any taxable service.

The Tribunal referred to the decision in Gammon India Ltd., where it was held that mobilization advance is merely a financial arrangement within the contract, granted to enable the contractor to prepare for undertaking the work, and therefore cannot be included in the gross amount for valuation of taxable services.

Peanut Butter Classified as Similar to Margarine: CESTAT Sets Aside ₹1.35Cr Cenvat Credit Demand While Upholding Credit Reversal on Written-Off Inputs

M/s Agro Tech Foods Ltd vs Commissioner of Central TaxRangareddy - GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1363

The dispute arose after the department issued a Show Cause Notice proposing recovery to the appellant, Agro Tech Foods Ltd., of Cenvat credit on the allegation that peanut butter manufactured by the appellant was exempt from duty under Sl. No. 30 of Notification No. 3/2006-CE, which covered “edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included.”

On the issue of inputs written off, the Tribunal held that Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules clearly mandates reversal when inputs are written off and therefore upheld the demand to that extent.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the demand of ₹1.35 crore, while sustaining the much smaller credit reversal related to written-off inputs.

‘Input’ vs ‘Input Service’ Mismatch in ST-3 Return a Harmless Error: CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit Refund u/s. 142(9)(b)

Punjab National Bank vs Commissioner of CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1364

Justice Binu Tamta, Judicial Member, observed that the issue of entitlement under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 was already settled in favour of the appellant through judicial decisions. The provision clearly permits a cash refund where a revised return enhances the closing balance of Cenvat Credit.

The Bench held that not carrying forward the amount in TRANS-1 cannot be used to deny the refund, noting the Tribunal’s earlier ruling that an assessee may choose the more beneficial option available under law.

In assessing the mismatch, the Tribunal found that the credit amount of ₹2,61,589 was clearly reflected in invoices relating to audit fees. The description of the entry as ‘input’ in the ST-3 Return, instead of ‘input service’, was deemed a harmless clerical error. The Tribunal ruled that the appellant had genuinely availed the credit, and the minor reporting lapse did not impact the merits of the refund entitlement.

Relief for Godrej Consumer: CESTAT Rules Sending Imported Goods to Job Worker is Not Violation of Target Plus Scheme Condition

M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs(Air) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1365

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (Appellant), a manufacturer and exporter of electronic mosquito repellent machines and related products. The appellant had obtained a duty credit certificate under the Target Plus Scheme (an export incentive scheme). The appellant utilized this scrip, governed by Notification No. 73/2006-Cus, to import 'PTC Thermistors'.

The bench comprising M. Ajit Kumar ( Technical Member) and Ajayan T.V. ( Judicial Member), held that a plain reading of the relevant condition (Condition 3 of Notification No. 73/2006) and its provision did not place any embargo on a manufacturer importer utilizing the services of a job worker for manufacturing products using the imported goods.

The tribunal relied on Public Notice No. 113 (RE-2007)/2004-09, which explicitly stated: "Job workers can be used for conversion of imports permitted under the scheme into any possible resultant products". It also noted that the violation only occurs if the imported products are sold to job workers prior to conversion. Since the SCN did not allege the sale of goods to the job worker, the tribunal found no contravention.

Customs Valuation Rejected for Timber Import: CESTAT Quashes Customs Duty Demand for Non-Compliance with Rule 12

M/s. Fine Wood Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1366

The Appellant, M/s. Fine Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals challenging the Order in Appeal Nos. 265 to 279/2015 (CXA – II) dated 22.09.2015, which upheld the rejection of the Appellant's declared transaction value for imported Gurjan Round Timber Logs and the redetermination of duty based on the residual method under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (CVR, 2007).

The Tribunal, consisting of Judicial Member, Ajayan T.V., and Technical Member, M. Ajit Kumar, heard and reviewed the matter filed by the Appellant.

The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions made, found the valuation procedure fundamentally flawed. The department relied on B.E. No. 9510941 dated 07.03.2013 (reference value Rs. 24,397.56 per CBM) for BOEs 1-9, and NIDB database for BOEs 10-15, but failed to share any BOE or invoice with the importer, denying them the opportunity to defend their case on parameters like quality, grade, quantity, or country of origin.

Insurance Company's CENVAT Credit Appeal Allowed: CESTAT Rules Services Received Before Restrictive Definition Applied

M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vsCommissioner of GST and Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1367

The Appellant, M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, challenged the denial of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for vehicle repair claims whereby the dispute arose for the period April 2011 to September 2011, following an amendment to the definition of "input services" in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, effective 01.04.2011 which excluded services related to motor vehicles.

The Tribunal consisted of Technical Member, Vasa Seshagiri Rao, heard and reviewed the matter challenged by the Appellant.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made, held that the amendment to the "input services" definition was prospective in nature, and strongly agreed with the appellant. The Tribunal stated that the adjudicating authorities had indeed exceeded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by introducing new allegations, violating principles of natural justice.

Duty Demand on DFIA Imports Set Aside: CESTAT Rules Extended Limitation Cannot Apply to Bona Fide Transferee

Indras Agencies Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1368

Indras Agencies Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, had imported three consignments of patchouli oil during 2012-2013 using two DFIA licences originally issued to Pan Parag India Ltd., Kanpur for export of pan masala and gutkha. These licences had been validly transferred to the appellant, and Customs officers had verified them at the time of import before permitting clearance.

The bench of Judicial Member, Ajayan T. V. and Technical Member, M. Ajit Kumar observed that the SCN issued to the appellant consisted of allegations of misrepresentation and suppression pertained solely to the exporter who originally obtained the DFIA licences. The Tribunal noted that there was no allegation whatsoever that the appellant had committed any wilful misstatement, suppression, or collusion.

The Bench in the light of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, permits invocation of the extended five-year period only when such conduct is attributed to the person from whom the duty is sought to be recovered. Thus, the foundational condition for invoking the extended limitation period was absent.

Clandestine Removal Charge Fails: CESTAT Drops ₹97.9 Lakh Excise Demand over Non-Compliance with S.9D and S. 36B

M/s. Vikromatic Steels Pvt.Ltd VS Commissioner, CGST & CX,Ranchi 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1369

The Appellant, M/s Vikromatic Steels Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots, TMT Bars and Flats under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The case arose from a search carried out by DGCEI, Jamshedpur at the appellant’s premises, during which officers claimed to have recovered loose sheets and computer printouts said to originate from a pen drive belonging to the cashier. Statements of various personnel, including that of Director Jai Prakash Choudhary, were recorded during the investigation.

A Show Cause Notice alleged clandestine removal of goods without invoices and without payment of duty, proposing recovery of ₹97,97,194 with interest under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty under Section 11AC. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand along with penalties on both the company and the Director, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, prompting the present appeals.

The Bench comprising R. Muralidhar, Judicial Member, and K. Anpazhakan, Technical Member, held that the demand could not be sustained in view of foundational lapses in the evidentiary process. The Tribunal noted that the statements relied upon by the Department were inadmissible as Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates that the persons whose statements are relied upon must be examined before the adjudicating authority, a requirement that was never fulfilled.

Excise Duty Cannot Rest on Assumptions: CESTAT Rules Clandestine Clearance Allegation Fails for Lack of Cogent Evidence

The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax vs ChandukaHi-Tech Steels Pvt. Ltd 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1370

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur, against M/s. Chanduka Hi-Tech Steels Pvt. Ltd. (CHPL), M/s. Ratangarva Industries (RI), and the authorised representative of RI, following Order-in-Original.

The case originated from an investigation alleging that CHPL clandestinely manufactured and removed excisable goods from its own factory as well as from units of M/s. KYS Manufacturers & Exporters Pvt. Ltd. (KYS) and RI, without payment of duty between November 2011 and January 2013.

The Tribunal, comprising R. Muralidhar, Judicial Member and K. Anpazhakan, Technical Member, observed that CHPL, KYS, and RI were independent registered manufacturers, and no evidence existed to establish that CHPL produced goods in the premises of RI. The statements relied upon by the Revenue were found to be uncorroborated third-party statements, while the statement of RI’s authorised representative consistently contradicted the Department’s case.

Commercial Chartering Services by Shipping Ministry liable to service tax on 1% commission, Extended Limitation Period Not Applicable: CESTAT

PR. COMMISSIONER OF CGST & SERVICE TAX-DELHI SOUTH VSCHARTERING WING 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1371

The Tribunal heard an appeal filed by the Appellant, Principal Commissioner of CGST & ServiceTax-Delhi South against the Respondent, Chatering Wing (Tranchart) of the Ministry of Shipping. The Revenue challenged an order dated 29.12.2017, which had dropped service tax proceedings against the Respondent.

The Tribunal, consisting of Judicial Member, Rachna Gupta, and Technical Member, P.V Subba Rao, heard and reviewed the matter.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made, found that the Respondent was indeed providing a taxable service to PSUs for a consideration, similar to commercial brokers. It clarified that taxability did not depend on profitability, whether an activity was statutory, or if an agreement mentions tax. It also noted that "Government" was included in the definition of "person" for service tax purposes after 01.07.2012. Therefore, the service was held to be taxable.

Penalty Not Sustainable when Customs Ignores Assessee’s Valuation: CESTAT Quashes Penalties of Rs 1.57 Crore

Amit Bhutoria VS Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1372

The case originated from intelligence developed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) concerning "Trade Based Money Laundering." The investigation targeted importers who were allegedly over-invoicing goods declared as "rough precious stones" to illegally remit money out of India.

The CESTAT found that the allegation of connivance was baseless and unsupported by evidence, and critically, the Department failed to establish that the goods examined by the appellant and the goods subject to the investigation were the same.

As a result, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under both Sections 112(a)(iii) and 114AA, and allowed the appeals in full.

Gold Seizure by Customs: CESTAT says Dept failed to prove Seized Gold is Foreign and Smuggled, Orders Release

Birendra Nath Ghosh vs Commissioner of Customs(Preventive) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1373

The appeals were filed by Birendra Nath Ghosh and others against orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, which had upheld penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The case arose from a seizure conducted in November 2017 in Kolkata, where customs officials recovered two kilograms of gold and ₹2 lakh in cash, alleging that the gold was smuggled.

Regarding the confiscation of ₹2 lakh in Indian currency, the Tribunal concluded that there was no connection between the cash and the smuggled gold. The Tribunal ordered the authorities to return the seized money, along with any relevant interest from the time of the seizure until it was returned.

Rough Estimates in Private Diaries Not Sufficient to Prove Clandestine Clearance: CESTAT Sets Aside Central Excise Duty Demand and Penalties

M/s. Dhara Polytubes Private Limited vs Commissioner of CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1374

The Tribunal ruled that the demand, which was based on allegations of clandestine clearance, was unsustainable both on legal principle and due to a serious procedural flaw that amounted to a violation of natural justice.

The appeals were filed by M/s. Dhara Polytubes Private Limited, its Director Shri Prem Kumar, and its Supervisor Shri Kumar Rajoo, challenging an Order-in-Original that had confirmed the duty demand. The core allegation was that the company had indulged in clandestine clearance of PVC Pipes to evade Central Excise Duty and illegally avail the Small Scale Industry (SSI) Exemption.

The CESTAT Bench, comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member), found merit in the appellants' submissions. The Tribunal held that the failure to supply RUDs violated the established principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Tribunal reinforced the settled legal position that allegations of clandestine clearance must be backed by cogent, positive, and tangible evidence.

CESTAT allows CENVAT Credit to Adhunik Industries, Holds Denial based on Technical Objections Unsustainable

Adhunik Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, CentralExcise and Service Tax, Durgapur 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1375

The Tribunal confirmed that substantive benefits under the CENVAT Credit Rules cannot be denied merely on technical or procedural grounds. The appeal was filed by Adhunik Industries Ltd., a steel manufacturer, challenging an order passed by the lower authority denying CENVAT credit and confirming consequential demand and penalties. The dispute arose from the Department’s allegation that the credit availed by the appellant was not admissible under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

After examining the records, a Division Bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), observed that the Department had not disputed the receipt of inputs or services, nor their utilization in the manufacturing activity of the appellant. The Tribunal held that once the nexus between inputs and manufacture is established and duty-paid nature of inputs is not in question, denial of CENVAT credit merely on technical grounds is not sustainable in law.

Plain Packaging Not Ground to Deny Concession Duty Under India-Singapore Trade Agreement: CESTAT Quashes Denial of Benefit for HDPE Granules

M/s. Blow Plast Industries vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1376

The Appellant, M/s. Blow Plast Industries, challenges the denial of concessional duty benefit under Notification No. 10/2008- Cus dated 15.01.2008 for imported HDPE Granules originating from Singapore, on the sole ground that the imported goods did not bear marks and numbers indicating the country of origin and manufacturer details on the packages.

The Tribunal consisted of Judicial Member, Ajayan T.V and Technical Member, M. Ajit Kumar, heard and reviewed the matter.

The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions made by both the Counsels, found that the sole issue for consideration was whether the customs authorities were justified in denying the benefit of the Notification claimed on the ground that the imported goods were not correlatable with the Certificate of Origin accompanying them.

Customs Commissioner Fails to issue Notice within 90 days: CESTAT Quashes Penalty over Custom Brokers License Proceedings

M/s. La Freight Lift Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1377

The Appellant, M/s. La Freight Lift Pvt Ltd, Chennai, preferred two interconnected appeals arising from the same impugned Order-in-Original dated 06.06.2016, was aggrieved by the impugned order in original to the extent that it has ordered a forfeiture of the full amount of security deposit.

After reviewing and considering the material on record, the Tribunal said that Regulation 20(1) of CBLR 2013 mandates the Commissioner of Customs to issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report.

The Tribunal noted that this provision is pari materia with Regulation 22(1) of CHALR 2004, which was considered by the Madras High Court in M/s. Santon Shipping Services v. The Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT.

The High Court, in its judgment dated 13.10.2017 in C.M.A No. No.730 of 2016, unequivocally held that the 90-day limitation period is mandatory. It was held that failure to issue the show cause notice within this period renders the consequent proceedings unlawful.

Dept Fails to Re-test Samples Examined by Govt Valuer: CESTAT Quashes Penalties for Lack of Evidence in Precious Stones Over-Invoicing

Amit Bhutoria VS Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1378

M/s. Dhara Polytubes Private Limited vs Commissioner of CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1379

The Tribunal consisted of Judicial Member, R. Muralidhar and Technical Member, K. Anpazhakan, heard and reviewed the matter.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made, observed that despite repeated requests through letters dated 05.09.2007, 03.10.2007, 11.12.2007 and 19.12.2007, they relied upon documents that were never supplied to the appellant. The ex-parte order passed without supplying these documents violated principles of natural justice. Relying on Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that such orders are void and not curable.

The Tribunal found the appellant's actual clearance value for FY 2005-06 was Rs.1,18,14,462/- within SSI exemption limits under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The Department wrongly added Rs. Rs. 85,95,500/- from rough estimates in eight notebooks without verifying actual manufacture, supply, transporters, receivers, or sale proceeds.

Form 26AS Alone Cannot Sustain Service Tax Demand Without Precedent Review: CESTAT Orders Fresh Decision in One Month

Rama Overseas Company vs CGST & Central Excise-Vadodara-I 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1380

Rama Overseas Company, represented through its proprietor, was issued a demand for service tax on the basis of figures reflected in Form 26AS. The proceedings arose after the Department initiated action by comparing entries in Form 26AS with those declared in the assessee’s financial statements and Service Tax returns.

The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether tax liability could be sustained solely on the basis of Form 26AS discrepancies without establishing that the receipts reflected therein represented taxable services. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously remanded the matter, and the assessee contended that the directions issued earlier were not complied with.

The bench of Judicial Member Somesh Arora observed that the case had not been adjudicated on merits at multiple stages and that essential issues remained unresolved. The Tribunal reproduced the key observations of the Allahabad Bench, which held that Form 26AS alone cannot constitute the basis for determining service tax liability without independent verification of the nature of receipts.

Form 26AS Alone Cannot Sustain Service Tax Demand Without Precedent Review: CESTAT Orders Fresh Decision in One Month

Rama Overseas Company vs CGST & Central Excise-Vadodara-I 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1380

Rama Overseas Company, represented through its proprietor, was issued a demand for service tax on the basis of figures reflected in Form 26AS. The proceedings arose after the Department initiated action by comparing entries in Form 26AS with those declared in the assessee’s financial statements and Service Tax returns.

The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether tax liability could be sustained solely on the basis of Form 26AS discrepancies without establishing that the receipts reflected therein represented taxable services. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously remanded the matter, and the assessee contended that the directions issued earlier were not complied with.

The bench of Judicial Member Somesh Arora observed that the case had not been adjudicated on merits at multiple stages and that essential issues remained unresolved. The Tribunal reproduced the key observations of the Allahabad Bench, which held that Form 26AS alone cannot constitute the basis for determining service tax liability without independent verification of the nature of receipts.

Steel Manufacturer's Appeal Allowed: CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty Demand for Lack of Evidence on Clandestine Clearance

Adhunik Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1381

The Appellant, M/s. Adhunik Industries Limited, was a medium scale integrated steel plant engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods TMT Bar, MS Round, MS Flat etc. falling under Chapter 72 of the CETA, 1985, wherein the present appeals arose from the Order-in-Original No. 111 dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner ofCustoms, Central Excise and Service Tax, Durgapur.

The Tribunal consisted of Judicial Member, R. Muralidhar and Technical Member, K. Anpazhakan, heard and reviewed the matter.

The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions made, held that the appellant had affected genuine ex-factory sales, discharged excise duty, and received payments through account-payee cheques, and therefore could not be held responsible for the buyer’s transportation or alleged non-use of goods.

Small-Scale Exemption Cannot be Denied without Evidence: CESTAT Rules Expert Opinion Inadmissible, Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand

M/s A. K. Industries vs Commissioner of Central ExciseandService Tax, Ludhiana 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1382

A. K. Industries (appellant) claimed to be engaged in the manufacture of 'Brass Billets,' which they cleared without paying excise duty, claiming the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 (as amended) for the period from April 2005 to June 2005.

The CESTAT bench, comprising S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), observed that the show cause notice was mainly based on the partner's statement and the expert opinion, both from 2001, while the disputed period was April to June 2005.

The Tribunal noted that an identical opinion from the same department demand had been rejected in the case of M/s Usha Impex, where the Tribunal found the opinion incomplete and lacking examination of the goods’ characteristics.

Reimbursable Expenses Excluded from Service Tax Valuation: CESTAT sets aside Demand in CHA Services Case

Balram Shipping Services vs Commissioner of GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1383

The appellant, Balram Shipping Services, was registered with the service tax department for providing Customs House Agent service (CHA), challenged Order in Appeal No.450/2016 dated 29.07.2016, wherein the appellate authority allowed Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal consisted of Judicial Member, Ajayan T.V and Technical Member, M. Ajit Kumar, heard and reviewed the matter.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made, held that service tax on reimbursable expenses is settled by the Supreme Court's decision in UOI v Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd, 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC), which struck down Rule 5(1) of the Valuation Rules, 2006 as ultra vires Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

PIMS Registration Timeline Directory, Not Mandatory: CESTAT Quashes Confiscation for Delayed PIMS Compliance

Service Tax Exemption under Notification cannot be denied due to delay in filing EXP-2 Return: CESTAT

The Merchants vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1385

The Merchants (appellant) engaged in the export of goods, paid commissions in foreign currency to various foreign-based persons for services related to their export activities in India. The department alleged that these services fell under the taxable categories of 'Business Auxiliary Services' and 'Banking and Other Financial Services'.

The bench, comprising S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), allowed the appeal and set aside the demand. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 18/2009-ST.

Following the decision in HEG Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, the bench ruled that the substantive benefit of the notification cannot be denied merely on the basis of a delay in filing the EXP-2 returns, which constitutes a procedural lapse.

Swachh Bharat Cess Refund Clarified: CESTAT Favors Genpact, Cites No Time-Bar on Export Proceeds

M/s Genpact India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1386

M/s Genpact India Private Limited, a provider of backend business process outsourcing services including book-keeping, revenue accounting, call-centre operations and IT helpdesk support, had filed a refund claim for accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) and Notification No. 39/2012-Service Tax, as amended. The services were exported to its overseas client, Genpact International Inc., Hungary Branch.

The two-member Bench comprising Judicial Member, S. S. Garg and Technical Member, P. Anjani Kumar remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that although the definition of “input service” excludes certain categories from 01.04.2011, such exclusions apply only when the service is used primarily for personal consumption of employees. The adjudicating authority had not examined whether the disputed services were used for personal purposes or were business-related, and therefore the refund could not be rejected without this determination.

On the issue of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the Bench held that even after the 2012 amendment, credit that is taken wrongly but not utilised can still be recovered only by following the statutory mechanism under Rule 14(1)(i). The Tribunal emphasised that revenue authorities cannot determine nexus or deny credit eligibility at the refund stage without first issuing proceedings to deny credit in accordance with law.

IPR Licensing Cannot be Treated as Franchise Service: CESTAT Grants Relief to Reckitt Benckiser

Reckitt Benckiser Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Goods &Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1387

Reckitt Benckiser Private Limited, engaged in the manufacture and sale of fast-moving consumer goods including drugs, was registered under the service tax law for various taxable services, including Intellectual Property Service. The company had entered into licensing agreements with its overseas group entities, under which it was granted non-exclusive rights to use intellectual property rights for the design, manufacture, distribution, marketing, and sale of products in India.

On examining the licensing agreements, the tribunal found that they merely granted rights to use intellectual property for manufacturing and marketing products, while ownership of the intellectual property remained with the licensors. The appellant continued to operate independently, without significant control by the licensors, and clearly disclosed itself as the manufacturer of the goods. These features were inconsistent with a franchise arrangement.

The tribunal also rejected the argument that pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court automatically nullified the binding nature of the earlier tribunal order, noting that no stay had been granted.

Time Spent Before Refund Authority to Be Excluded for Limitation: CESTAT Remands Custom Appeal on Post-Clearance FTA Exemption Claim

Kalmar India Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1388

Kalmar India Private Limited (formerly M/s. Cargotec India Private Ltd.) (appellant) regularly imports "Spreaders RSX40" from Malaysia. These goods are eligible for exemption from basic Customs duty under Notification No. 53/2011-Customs if accompanied by aCertificate of Origin (COO).

The tribunal noted that the litigant should not suffer for administrative delays beyond their control, characterizing the two-year delay by the department as "unexplained administrative inaction".

The tribunal observed the lower appellate authority’s order as "vague and cryptic," and also noted that it failed to address core legal pleas regarding the exclusion of time under the Limitation Act.

Leasing of Containers from Overseas Lessor Not ‘Supply of Tangible Goods’: CESTAT Sets Aside Service Tax Demand

Caravel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1389

Caravel Logistics (appellant) provides services including Custom House Agent and Transport of Goods. The company leased containers from foreign entities for transporting import and export cargo, paying rent in foreign currency.

The bench comprising M. Ajit Kumar (TechnicalMember) and Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member), observed that the "five-fold test" established by the Supreme Court in the BSNL case was satisfied in this instance.

The tribunal observed that the delivery of containers to the appellant constituted a transfer of possession. It also observed that the appellant had the legal right to use the containers, obtained necessary customs licenses in its own name, and enjoyed "quiet possession" to the exclusion of the lessor.

Reimbursement of Electricity Charges Not Taxable as Service: CESTAT Sets Aside Service Tax Demand on Ubico Network

Service Tax Demand Time-Barred for Sub Contractor where Principal Contractor Paid Service Tax: CESTAT Sets Aside Demand, Interest & Penalty

Sree Nandhees Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of GST &Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1391

Sree Nandhees Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) acted as a dedicated sub-contractor for M/s. Emerson Network Power India Pvt. Ltd. (Principal), providing maintenance and repair services for UPS systems.

The tribunal noted that there was significant ambiguity and divergent legal views regarding sub-contractor liability prior to the 2007 Master Circular. It also observed that the Department failed to provide evidence of "intent to evade" or "wilful suppression," as the appellant's actions were based on a prevailing understanding of the law.

The tribunal noted that the appellant was consistently filing returns, and the income was not disclosed only due to the interpreted practice at the time. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the tribunal held that once a demand is found to be time-barred, there is no occasion to examine the merits of the case.

Transport of Minerals Inside Mines Is Not ‘Mining Service’: CESTAT Rejects Service Tax Demand

DTA-SEZ Supplies not “deemed exports”: CESTAT Sets Aside Excise Refund Rejection, Remands for Fresh Consideration

M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd vs Commissioner of GST &Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1393

CESTAT further relied on a Circular dated 28.04.2015, held that DTA-to-SEZ clearances were to be treated as exports for excise purposes. The matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration in light of the circular and judicial precedents.

The Appellant, M/s. Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd., filed six excise appeals before CESTAT Chennai,against the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate.

These appeals arose from six different Orders-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I) and Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai, dated 31.05.2016, 31.10.2016, 30.12.2016, 27.12.2017, 28.04.2018 and 28.04.2018 respectively.

Cigarette Packs Lacking Mandatory Declarations Had to be Destroyed, Not Auctioned: CESTAT sets aside Forfeiture

Reversal of CENVAT Credit Equivalent to Non-Availment: CESTAT Sets Aside Rs. 1.11 Crore Service Tax Demand

Skipper Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1395

The Appellant, M/s Skipper Ltd., engaged in providing taxable services under category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service', 'Execution of Work Contract Service', 'Transportation of goods by Road Service' and 'Business Support Service', filed an appeal arising out of Order-in-Original No. 70/COMMR/ST-II/KOL/2016-17 dated 23.09.2016 passed by Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata.

The Tribunal consisted of Judicial Member, R. Muralidhar and Technical Member, K. Anpazhakan, heard and reviewed the matter.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made, held that reversal of CENVAT credit is equivalent to non-availment. Rule 6(3A) and 6(3AA) mandate a liberal approach to proportionate credit reversal. Following the above mentioned precedents, the Tribunal ruled that reversal of credit amounts to non-availment, rendering the 6%/5% levy of Rs. 1,11,40,506/- legally unsustainable and accordingly set aside the same.

CVD on Castings Imported for Wind Electricity Generators: CESTAT Directs Fresh Valuation, Appeals Against Provisional Assessment Valid

Commissioner of Customs vs M/s.Siemens Gamesa Renewable PowerPvt. Ltd. 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1396

The Respondent, M/s.Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., imported various parts of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG) from China. These goods were provisionally assessed for CVD under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, pursuant to Notification No. 1/2016-Customs (CVD) dated 19.01.2016. This notification authorized CVD on "Castings for wind-operated electricity generators, whether or not machined, in raw, finished or sub-assembled form, or as a part of a sub-assembly, or as a part of an equipment/ component meant for wind-operated electricity generators."

The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, held that a plain reading of CVD Notification No. 1/2016-Customs clearly authorizes levy on castings existing "as a part of a sub-assembly, equipment or component" for wind-operated electricity generators and rejected the Commissioner (Appeals)'s interpretation that disallowed "vivisection," holding this would render the notification nugatory and contradict statutory interpretation principles.

The Tribunal cautioned that if valuation cannot be determined, no CVD can be levied, citing the Supreme Court principle in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (AIR 1981 SC 972), that there can be no levy if the computation mechanism fails.

Inadvertent Wrong Citation of Notification Not Fatal When Eligibility Conditions are same: CESTAT Sets Aside ₹82.84 Crore Demand of Erroneous Refund

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited vs Commissioner, C.G.S.T. andCentral Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1397

The Appellant, M/s. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited, established a manufacturing unit in Sikkim, availing excise duty exemption benefits under government notifications. The dispute arose concerning an alleged erroneous refund of Rs. 82,84,25,639/- demanded by the Commissioner, Central G.S.T. & Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate, the Respondent.

The Tribunal acknowledged the identical nature of benefits and conditions under Notification No. 56/2003 and No. 20/2007, concluding that the inadvertent error in mentioning the notification should not disentitle the Appellant from the eligible benefits, relying on the cited judgments and held that the refund sanctioning Orders-in-Original had attained finality as the Revenue failed to challenge them through the appeal mechanism provided under Section 35E.

Further, the Tribunal cited the Madras High Court's decision in Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs CESTAT [Civil Misc Appeal No.973 of 2008 vide order dated 3.3.2016 - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 189 (Mad.) [03-03-2016], which ruled that once an adjudication order granting a refund attains finality, Section 11A cannot be invoked to recover the amount as an "erroneous refund" and to allow such recovery would permit a collateral proceeding to nullify a final order, which was impermissible.

CESTAT Quashes Customs duty on Silk Fabric Imports, Rules Non-Return of Seized Laptop Violates Natural Justice and Remits Matter

Francis Goel vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1398

Francis Goel, the proprietor of M/s Tek Chand International (appellant) was accused of resorting to both under-valuation and over-valuation of silk fabrics imported from China to evade customs and anti-dumping duties. Following an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), a laptop belonging to the appellant was seized from a residential premises.

The bench comprising M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) and Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member), observed that it is not for the authority to decide if requested documents were necessary for a defense. The tribunal highlighted that CBEC Circulars explicitly direct that all un-relied-upon documents must be returned within 15 days of issuing an SCN.

Revenue Sharing with Diagnostic Labs Not Taxable as BSS: CESTAT Sets aside Service Tax Demand on Hospital

NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research vsCommissioner of Central Excise, Goods &Service Tax, Rohtak 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1399

NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research (appellant) is a hospital registered under ‘Health Services’ and ‘Renting of Immovable Property’. The hospital entered into agreements with various diagnostic entities, such as Lal Pathlabs, to provide pathology and diagnostic services within the hospital premises.

The bench comprising S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the issue was already settled in the appellant's favor for previous and subsequent periods, and the department had not challenged those earlier orders.

The tribunal noted that the relationship between the hospital and the DSPs was on a principal-to-principal basis. It found that the hospital was the one providing healthcare services to patients, and the DSPs acted as an integral part of this joint venture.

Drawback on Exports Delivered to Dubai Instead of Russia: CESTAT Quashes Rs. 31.66 Lakh Disallowance, sets aside Confiscation Order

Texcomash Export & Sh. N.K. Rajgarhia vs Commissioner ofCustoms, New Delhi 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1400

The Tribunal stated that delivery at Dubai against surrender of original bills of lading was a normal commercial practice. Accordingly, the disallowance of ₹31.66 lakh drawback and the confiscation order were set aside.

The Tribunal consisted of Judicial Member, Rachna Gupta, heard and reviewed the matter filed by the Appellant challenging the order. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made, held that the final order No. 355/2005 allowed drawback for 29 shipments of children's garments but remanded the matter concerning 9 shipments of ladies' garments.

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