Annual Customs, Excise and Service Tax Case Digest: CESTAT Rulings 2025 (Part 7)
This article summarises all CESTAT orders published in the Taxscan.in. Jewel Appraisal Charges Collected by Co-operative Society for Members’ Jewel Loan Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT M/s. The Sathyamangalam Agricultural vs Commissioner of GST andCentral Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 401 The appeal was filed by a co-operative society constituted for...
This article summarises all CESTAT orders published in the Taxscan.in.
Jewel Appraisal Charges Collected by Co-operative Society for Members’ Jewel Loan Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT
M/s. The Sathyamangalam Agricultural vs Commissioner of GST andCentral Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 401
The appeal was filed by a co-operative society constituted for the benefit of agriculturists and farmers, who are also its members. Among its various activities, the society provides jewel loans to its members and collects a nominal appraisal fee calculated at 3% of the loan amount, subject to a ceiling of Rs. 100 per loan, to cover the cost of assessing the quality of the pledged ornaments.
The two member bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) and Ajayan TV (Judicial) observed that the appraisal charges collected by the society were essentially to ensure the quality of the collateral and were a part of the administrative process for sanctioning loans. It held that such internal administrative measures do not constitute a taxable service. Accordingly, following the principle laid down in similar precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.
Classification of Service Provided by Larsen & Toubro Ltd: CESTAT Upholds 'Business Auxiliary Service' Over 'Repair and Maintenance'
M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited vs The Commissioner of ServiceTax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 402
Larsen & Toubro Limited,appellant-assessee,had entered into a marketing agreement with L&T Komatsu Ltd. on 01.02.1998 to act as its agent for promoting and selling products in specified areas. Authorities later treated this activity as ‘Repair and Maintenance Service’ and raised a demand of ₹59,43,842 based on payments received in March 2005. A show-cause notice was issued on 22.04.2010, and the demand was confirmed through the impugned order.
The two member bench comprising P.A.Augustian (Judicial Member) and R.Bhagya Devi(Technical Member) considered submissions from both sides and went through the records. It found that the matter had already been decided in the assessee’s earlier case, where the Larger Bench held that the activity was classifiable under ‘Business Auxiliary Service’. The department had also accepted this and started collecting tax under that category from 10.09.2004. Given this, the tribunal held that the demand raised under ‘Repair and Maintenance Service’ could not be sustained.
Relief for SAIL: CESTAT Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand on Inter-Unit Transfers Due to Revenue Neutrality
M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited vs Commissioner of CentralExcise & Service TAX 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 403
Steel Authority of India Limited,appellant-assessee,manufactured refractory materials and supplied them to both its own units and independent buyers. In 2012, the department started an investigation, alleging undervaluation in stock transfers to related units.
The two member bench comprising Ashok Jindal(Judicial Member) and K.Anpazhakan(Technical Member) reviewed the case and found that the main issues were whether the excise duty demand was valid for inter-unit transfers where the receiving unit could claim credit, and whether the valuation should include 10% of the cost of production.
The tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided in the assessee’s previous case, where it was ruled that no duty was due as the situation was revenue neutral. It also referred to the Hindalco Industries case, which supported this view.
CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit to VLCC Despite Non-Production of Original Documents, Citing Verification of Photocopies
M/s VLCC Healthcare Ltd vs Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex. 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 404
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) allowed VLCC Healthcare Ltd. to claim CENVAT credit despite the non-production of original documents, emphasizing that CENVAT credit could be verified through alternative means, such as photocopies of invoices and certificates.
However, it was clear that the input services were received and used by the assessee. The tribunal noted that previous rulings had established that CENVAT credit could not be denied solely due to missing original documents if the services could be verified by other means. Revenue failed to show that the services were not used by the assessee.
Citing decisions from cases like JSW Steel and Shivam Electrical Industries, the CESTAT concluded that the assessee could claim CENVAT credit based on certificates and photocopies of invoices. As the demand was not valid, the extended period and penalty were not applicable, and the impugned order was set aside. The penalty under Section 78 was also removed.
Vodafone Idea ₹13 Crore CENVAT Credit on Service Tax Dispute: CESTAT Upholds Relief granted by Co-ordinate Bench [Read Order]
Commissioner of CGST &Central Excise vs Vodafone Idea Limited 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 405
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai upheld a relief order favoring Vodafone Idea Limited in a ₹13.91 crore service tax dispute, dismissing the Revenue Department’s appeal.
The Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial), and M.M. Parthiban, Member (Technical) observed that the vendor’s consumption of diesel and electricity was inextricably linked to the service provided, and that the reimbursement of such expenses, documented through debit notes bearing statutory compliance, constituted part of the value of taxable services.
Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules Inapplicable Where there is No Sale or Captive Consumption: CESTAT in BSNL case
Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/s Bharat Sanchar NigamLimited 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 406
The dispute arose between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), the respondent, and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II, concerning the valuation method adopted by BSNL for clearance of telecom equipment to its own units during the period from April 2007 to January 2008.
The tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in Interim Order No. 24/2004 dated 28.10.2024, which answered a reference on the same issue. The Larger Bench held that Rule 8 cannot be invoked in cases where there is no sale and the goods are not used in further manufacture by the assessee.
Agreeing with the Larger Bench's findings, the two-member bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) held that the valuation adopted by BSNL was lawful and consistent with the Rules. The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, confirming that Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules was inapplicable in the present facts.
Relief to Sony India Ltd: CESTAT allows Customs Duty Exemption to Import 'Digital Still Image Video Cameras'
M/s Sony India Private Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 407
In a ruling in favour of Sony India Ltd, the New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that imported 'digital still image video cameras' are entitled to basic customs duty exemption.
The tribunal found that the digital still image video cameras involved in the present Customs Appeals would be entitled to exemption from basic customs duty in terms of the Notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended on 17.03.2012.
The two member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) set aside the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the ‘digital still image video cameras’ imported by the appellant would not be entitled to basic customs duty exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012 on the basis of the decision rendered by the Tribunal.
Relief for Vivo: CESTAT Orders Refund of Excess CVD, Rejects Consumer Welfare Fund Claim
M/s. Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 408
The assessee appealed the assessment, arguing they were entitled to the concessional rate based on the Supreme Court's decision in SRF Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on June 29, 2016. The assessee then approached the Tribunal, which ruled in their favor on January 5, 2017, ordering the adjudicating authority to reassess the claim. Following this, the Deputy Commissioner reassessed the Bills of Entry and applied the 1% CVD rate, resulting in a refund application for the excess CVD of Rs. 1,67,79,311 on March 8, 2018.
The two member bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and C.J Mathew (Technical Member) examined whether the refund amount should be directed to the Consumer Welfare Fund or paid to the appellant.It was agreed that the appellant had paid an excess amount of Rs. 1,67,79,311.90/- towards CVD, and the refund claim was filed on time. The Assistant Commissioner (Refund) reviewed the Books of Account and Financial Statements for the year 2015-16, noting that the recoverable duty was shown under "Short-term Loans & Advances."
Win for Coca-Cola: CESTAT Rules ISD-Distributed CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied for Lack of Nexus with Manufacturing Activity
Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST& Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 409
Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (HCCB), the appellant, is a manufacturer of aerated beverages operating from its Verna Industrial Estate unit in Goa. The appellant received input service credit from its corporate office, registered as an ISD in Raigad, Maharashtra. The credit related to various services received at the head office was distributed to the appellant's manufacturing unit for the period June 2015 to March 2017.
The single-member bench comprising C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) observed that under Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, a manufacturer is entitled to use credit lawfully distributed by an ISD, and it is not the role of the recipient to re-examine the nexus or character of such services. The tribunal explained that any challenge regarding the admissibility of the credit must be made at the ISD level, not against the recipient who has received the credit through statutory distribution.
The tribunal also observed that the revenue had accepted the tribunal’s earlier decision in favour of the appellant in an identical matter and had not appealed it. Following the principles of judicial consistency, the tribunal found the current demand unsustainable. The appeal was allowed.
Paying VAT on 80% and Service Tax on 20% of Works Contract Value Complies with Rule 2A: CESTAT in Otis Elevator Case
M/s. Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited vs CommissionerService Tax-VI 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 410
Otis Elevator Company, the appellant, is engaged in manufacturing elevator components and executing turnkey contracts that include the supply, erection, commissioning, and maintenance of elevators. For such composite contracts, the appellant treated 80% of the contract value as the sale of goods on which VAT was discharged, and paid service tax on the balance 20% considered as the service portion.
The two-member bench comprising Anil G. Shakkarwar ( Technical Member ) and Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) referenced appellant own case final order dated 13 March 2020, the tribunal held that the appellant’s practice was consistent with Rule 2A and that no fresh grounds were raised in the current demand for 2014–15.
No Service Tax Applicable on Construction of Center Medians for Roads: CESTAT
M/s. Shree Mahalakshmi & Co. vs The Commissioner of GST andCentral Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 411
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that service tax is not applicable to the construction of center medians on roads. It held that the exclusion under the definition of "works contract" is based on the type of infrastructure involved such as roads, airports, railways, and other key public assets, which are fundamental to a region’s economic infrastructure.
The Tribunal held that the phrase “in respect of” broadly means “in connection with” or “with reference to,” and affirmed that the appellant was engaged in constructing center-medians on a public highway. While the Adjudicating Authority sought to levy service tax citing that the service was rendered to an advertising agency for commercial purposes, the tribunal rejected this reasoning. It clarified that the definition of works contract service excludes contracts related to roads, regardless of the service recipient’s identity or business purpose, making the authority’s contention irrelevant to the exemption claim.
The bench of Ajayan TV and Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that the exclusion under the definition of "works contract" is based on the nature of the specified infrastructure such as roads, airports, railways, and similar public assets, which form the core of a region’s economic foundation. Since the appellant’s work of constructing center-medians on Highway No.67 (Trichy Road) is directly related to road infrastructure, it qualifies as a "works contract in respect of roads." Hence, the Tribunal held that the service tax demand on this activity is unsustainable and accordingly set it aside.
Service Tax Not Applicable on Buying or Selling of Space in Print Media: CESTAT
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE vs M/S NEXUSALLIANCE ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT LTD 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 412
The assessee/respondent, Nexus Alliance Advertising, sells space and time slots for advertising services in addition to offering advertising agency services. The assessee assists them in creating print, media, and audio ads for a variety of platforms. It pays service tax on the commission it receives for these services.
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee and the media outlets did not have an agreement to fulfill any goals or to offer incentives or discounts. Actually, the advertisers are the assessee's clients. The media plans proposed by the assessee are decided upon and approved by them. The assessee is therefore powerless to choose whether to have the ads broadcast on its preferred channels or appear in a specific newspaper.
The two member bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has found that the assessee is not obligated to the media outlets. Media companies only pay if the assessee meets specific goals while conducting business for its clients; otherwise, they provide incentives.
Cenvat Credit Extends Period Prior to Excise Registration: CESTAT allows Credit to Baking Soda Manufacturer
M/s. Bakers Product (India) vs Commissioner of GST and CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 413
The fact is that an excise appeal was filed by M/s. Bakers Product (India) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax. The order had confirmed excise duty demands on clearances under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest and penalties under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, while also appropriating the amounts already paid towards duty.
The tribunal observed that the the appellant has admitted the duty liability on Baking powder, Custard powder and Icing sugar and their claim is limited to entitlement of cenvat credit for Baking powder and eligibility of concessional rate of duty of 1% or 2% as the case may be for Custard powder and Icing sugar.
The bench observed that the appellants did not obtain Central Excise registration under a bona fide belief that their products were exempt from excise duty. It noted that “They had not taken out Central Excise Registration on a bonafide belief that their products do not attract excise duty. It is seen that the main demand pertains to Corn Flour clearances which are not dutiable as held above. In respect of Baking Powder after allowing the Cenvat credit, the duty demanded of Rs.18,66,889/- will be drastically reduced.
Manpower Supply by ITC to Five Hotels Liable to Service Tax Under “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service”: CESTAT
Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi vs M/s. ITC Ltd, Gurgaon 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 414
The assessee appealed the Adjudicating Authority's decision to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the Additional Commissioner's ruling. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has contested the Commissioner's (Appeals) ruling. The assessee argued that it is not providing manpower in the regular course of business. Furthermore, ITC had no intention of avoiding service tax payment because it honestly believed it was exempt from paying it.
The two-member bench of P.V. Subba Rao (technical) and Dilip Gupta (president) has noted that ITC has assigned staff to other hotels in order to maintain and operate those hotels in accordance with ITC Welcome group standards and to run those hotels smoothly and efficiently. This is in reference to the manpower supply to five units on a cost recovery basis. Under the heading of "manpower recruitment or supply agency service," it would be evident that providing labor to five hotels for almost three years would be subject to service tax.
Creditors including Central Govt Barred from Recovering Omitted Pre-Resolution Dues After NCLT Approval : CESTAT dismisses Appeal
M/s. Orchid Healthcare vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 415
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that once a resolution plan is approved by the National Company Law Tribunal ( NCLT ), creditors including government authorities cannot recover duty dues that were not included in the approved plan. It dismissed the appeal as such the appeal gets abated under Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the same appellants were earlier granted relief in connected matters through orders passed in February 2024 and February 2025. It relied on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. 2021, which categorically held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT under Section 31(1) of the IBC, all claims not part of the plan stand extinguished. This includes claims by the Central Government, State Government, or any local authority. The Tribunal observed that no further proceedings could be continued or initiated for such omitted claims.
Additionally the bench noted that as the NCLT, Chennai has already accorded its order for Liquidation of approval of the Resolution Plan in respect of the appellant vide its order dated 27.06.2019 and as application as per Rule 22 has been made by the Official Liquidator appointed by the NCLT for continuance of the appeal, the appeal should abate in terms of the referred Rule.
Refund Denial Over Delayed Cenvat Reversal: CESTAT Terms It Procedural, Allows Claim
Forrester Research India Private Limited vs Commissioner,Central Goods & Service Tax 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 416
Forrester Research India Private Limited,appellant-assessee,filed refund claims for three periods,October to December 2016, January to March 2017, and April to June 2017,amounting to ₹14,33,076, ₹15,37,420, and ₹12,68,941.The claims were rejected on the ground that the company had not reversed the Cenvat credit before filing the refund, as required under Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012.
A single member bench of Ashok Jindal(Judicial Member) heard both sides and noted that as per Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT), refund could be allowed only if Cenvat credit was reversed. In this case, the assessee had reversed the credit in their books and later reversed the amount transferred to TRAN-1 in June 2018. The tribunal treated this as sufficient compliance.
It held that the delay in reversal was a technical lapse and should not be a reason to deny the refund. The Tribunal referred to past decisions, including Lightspeed India Partners Advisors LLP, Chariot International (P) Ltd., and Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., where similar delays were accepted and refunds were allowed.
Rejection of Interest Waiver for Power Project Found Unreasoned: CESTAT Remits Matter for Fresh Consideration
Essar Power Gujarat Ltd vs Commissioner of C.E. & S.T. 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 417
Essar Power Gujarat Ltd ,appellant-assessee,had requested waiver of interest on goods imported for a power project. The goods were kept in a warehouse and cleared later. The request was based on the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs(CBIC) Circular No. 10/2006 dated 14.02.2006, which allowed interest waiver in such cases to avoid cost escalation in projects of national importance.
A single member bench of Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) found that the Chief Commissioner’s rejection of interest waiver was unreasoned and passed without giving the assessee a hearing. It noted that the decision was taken in an arbitrary manner, with no explanation provided.
The appellate tribunal observed that the CBIC Circular clearly supported interest waiver for power projects and explained why such cases deserved sympathetic consideration. However, the Chief Commissioner failed to apply the circular or provide any reasoning.
Setback for J.K. Cements: CESTAT Denies Interest on Cenvat Refund, Sanctioned Within Three Months
M/s. J.K. Cement Works vs Commissioner of CGST & CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 418
J.K. Cement Works,appellant-assessee,filed refund claims after two rounds of litigation. The Tribunal, through its order dated 04.07.2011, had partly allowed credit and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to quantify the disallowed amount. The Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 04.07.2018, quantified the credit and imposed a penalty, which was paid. This order was later challenged.
A single member bench of Dr.Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) noted that the refund claim was linked to six show cause notices issued between September 2003 and April 2004, which proposed reversal of Cenvat credit availed on inputs used for manufacturing. The assessee had reversed ₹13,20,352/- after receiving the notices. While it was claimed that the reversal was under protest, the tribunal found no written evidence to support this and observed that the reversal matched the exact amount proposed in the notices.
It held that the amount was not a deposit under protest but an appropriation towards duty. Since the refund was processed within three months of the application, the appellate tribunal ruled that no interest was payable under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.
Setback for GACL: CESTAT Upholds Service Tax Demand on ISO Tank Lease under Business Auxiliary Service
Gujarat Alkalies And Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner of C.E. &S.T.-Vadodara-ii 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 419
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT),upheld the service tax demand against Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (GACL), holding that the lease of ISO tanks from a French company for storing Aluminium Chloride abroad qualified as a taxable “Business Auxiliary Service” under Section 65(19)(iv) of the Finance Act, 1994, as it involved procurement of input services.
The appellate tribunal referred to Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, and agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that it did not apply in this case. Instead, Rule 3 was applicable, as the tanks were provided by the foreign service provider to the appellant in India. Consequently, the place of provision was India, making the service taxable here. Since the provider was located outside India, the service tax had to be paid under reverse charge by the recipient, as per Section 68(2) read with Notification No. 30/2012-ST.
The CESTAT also noted that the assessee had paid service tax on the same contract from 2010–11 to 2013–14 but failed to do so from 2014 onwards without providing any valid reason or seeking clarification from the department. The tribunal found that the assessee misapplied Rule 4 to avoid tax and had the audit not flagged it, the non-payment would have continued.
Service Tax Not Leviable on Income from Mall Management Prior to 01.05.2006: CESTAT
M/S PRIME MAXI MALL MANAGER (P) LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRALEXCISEDELHI-III 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 420
After being established as a business, the appellant changed its name to "Prime Maxi Mall Management (P) Ltd" on December 11, 2022. The appellant's primary source of revenue, through its subsidiary, "Ansal Plaza Mall Management Company," comes from the sale and leasing of commercial space in common areas of several malls built by third parties.
The two member bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta ( Judicial Member ) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that before May 1, 2006, the action of selling space for advertisements would have been classified as a business auxiliary service, therefore there would have been no need to create a distinct service called "selling of space for advertisement." Since the behavior was previously uncovered, the new service was launched on May 1, 2006. Under the service "selling of space for advertisement," the appellant paid a service tax on May 1, 2006, which the government does not contest.
The tribunal ruled that the government could not claim that the service was another service before May 1, 2006, when it officially recognized the activity as the selling of space for advertising.
Customs Dept’s Delay adjudication of SCN within 1 Year amount to denying Principle of Natural Justice: CESTAT
Innovale Investment Pte. Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner ofCustoms 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 421
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the customs department’s obligation to adjudicate show cause notice (SCN) within 1 year amount to denying principle of natural justice.
The tribunal ruled that a delay in deciding the show cause notice would be equivalent to a denial of fairness, judgment, non-arbitrariness, and the potential to apply natural justice principles in a meaningful way. A legal, equitable, and efficient quasi-judicial adjudication would be the opposite of the arbitrary and capricious administrative behavior in deciding a show cause notice. These are the same ideas that are implied in the Latin proverb "lex dilationes abhorret," which means "law abhors delay."
CENVAT Credit can be availed on Service Tax Paid over Advances received: CESTAT
Pride Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of CE & GST,Aurangabad 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 422
The appellant/assessee, Pride Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd, is a service provider. The appellant has to pay service tax on the advances received for future services rendered in accordance with Rule 3(b) of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. As of June 30, 2017, the appellant has paid Rs. 6,15,409 in service tax for future services for which advances were received.
According to the findings of Rule 118 of the CGST Rules and clause (c) of sub-section (11) of Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017, the appellant was entitled to a transitional credit of Rs. 6,15,409/-by submitting it at Sr.No.11 of Form TRAN-1, according to the single bench of Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member). The appellant had to put the same at Sr.No.5 of the form TRAN-1 due to a technical issue. The infraction of not inputting the necessary data at Senior No. 11 but doing so at Senior No. 5 is only procedural, and the appellant's substantial entitlement cannot be denied due to procedural infirmity.
The tribunal ruled that the infraction of failing to submit the necessary data at Senior No. 11 but doing so at Senior No. 5 is merely procedural, and the appellant's substantial right cannot be denied due to procedural infirmity The tribunal ordered the department to assume that the Rs. 6,15,409 data submitted at Sr. No. 5 of form TRAN-1 is the same as the data put at Sr. No. 11 of the same proforma.
Relief to India Cements: CESTAT Rules Demolition Activity Qualifies as Factory Repair Under Rule 2(l) of CCR
The India Cements Ltd vs The Commissioner of CGST & CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 423
India Cements Ltd., engaged in cement manufacturing, faced a demand of Rs. 1.10 crore along with interest and penalty for allegedly availing ineligible credit on services, including demolition of chimneys, transportation, and ISD-distributed credits. The adjudicating authority had ruled that the demolition of decommissioned chimneys could not be considered as modernization or repair under CCR.
The two-member bench comprising Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR and observed that the term “in relation to” is to be interpreted broadly, encompassing activities that directly or indirectly facilitate manufacturing.
The tribunal observed that the chimneys, though decommissioned, were located within the factory premises and their demolition was essential for operational efficiency, qualifying as renovation or repair of the factory. The tribunal set aside Rs. 1.10 crore demand, interest, and penalty and allowed the appeal, granting relief to India Cements Ltd.
Relief to Glenmark Pharma: CESTAT Rules Crimp Pumps Fall Under Positive Displacement Pumps, Not Toilet Spray Parts
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Commissioner of Customs(Import) 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 424
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that crimp pumps imported by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. are classifiable under positive displacement pumps (CTI 8413 5010 / 8413 5090) and not as mounts and heads for toilet sprays under CTI 9616 1020 as claimed by the Customs authorities.
The two-member bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) observed that classification should primarily be determined by the terms of the headings, section notes, and chapter notes as per GIR 1.
The tribunal explained that GIR 2(a) cannot be invoked when classification is clear under GIR 1. The tribunal further observed that the explanatory notes under HSN confirm that pumps for liquids, including those operated by hand, are covered under Chapter 84.
Commissioner Misdirected Findings in Export Services Dispute: CESTAT Remands Getz Pharma CENVAT Credit Refund Matter
Getz Pharma Research Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Service Tax -VII 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 425
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) misdirected the findings in the export services dispute involving Getz Pharma Research Pvt. Ltd. by shifting the issue from Place of Provision of Services under Rule 4 to Intermediary Services under Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, without proper show cause notice.
The tribunal observed that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the creation of intellectual property rights in India lacked legal justification, as there was no evidence that such rights were registered or vested in India under the applicable laws.
The tribunal observed that the eligibility for export status must be determined strictly under Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, and Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, along with judicial precedents on the subject. The tribunal ruled that the denial of a refund based on the intermediary services provision was misdirected and procedurally flawed.
Adjustment of Rebate Against Unfinalized Demand Not Permissible: CESTAT
UPL LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICETAX-BHARUCH 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 426
UPL Limited,appellant-assessee, challenged an order where the department adjusted a rebate claim against a demand. The department did this suo moto, even though the appellant had appealed the demand to the Commissioner (Appeals) and then to the Revisionary Authority (RA), which remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority.
The department argued that filing an appeal doesn’t stay the demand, so the refund could be adjusted. However, the advocate countered that the Revisionary Authority's (RA) remand was an open remand, which wasn’t considered in the cited cases. The advocate pointed to paragraph 13 of the RA's order, which set aside the earlier order and remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority.
A single member bench of Somesh Arora(Judicial Member) after considering both sides, agreed with the advocate and concluded that since the order was set aside by the RA, no demand existed. The bench therefore decided to set aside the order adjusting the rebate against the demand.
CESTAT allows Refund of Unutilized CENVAT Credit on Education Cess, Citing Transitional Provisions of CGST Act
Star India Private Limited vs Commissioner of CGST &CentralExcise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 427
The assessee filed a refund claim of ₹25,52,385 on June 28, 2018, for the balance of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess lying as on June 30, 2017. This amount had initially been carried forward through TRAN-1 and reflected in the ST-3 return. However, after clarification through the CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018, and a circular dated January 2, 2019, the credit was reversed by filing revised TRAN-1 and ST-3 returns on September 29, 2017.
A single member bench of M.M Parthiban(Technical Member) heard both sides, reviewed the records, and considered the additional submissions filed by the assessee.The issue was whether the assessee was entitled to a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess, as per the revised ST-3 return for June to September 2017. The refund was claimed under Section 142(3) and 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Sets Aside Service Tax Demand on Dealer Incentives, Holds Payments Not Taxable as Business Auxiliary Service
Jaika Motors Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 428
Jaika Motors Pvt Ltd,appellant-assessee,challenged a tax liability of ₹ 2,78,35,520 for providing ‘business auxiliary service’ during the period from 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015. The demand, raised under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, included interest under section 75 and penalties. It was based on incentives received by the appellant from M/s Tata Motors Ltd.
The two member bench comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member), after hearing the Authorized Representative, referred to its earlier decision in Jaika Motors Ltd and relied on the ruling in Sai Service Station Ltd [2014 (35) STR 625 (Tri.-Mumbai)].
The tribunal found the issue had been settled in the assessee's favor in a previous case, where the service tax demand was set aside. As a result, the CESTAT ruled the demand against the assessee was not sustainable, set aside the order, and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief.
Win for IndiGo: CESTAT Reclassifies Aircraft Engine Stands as Containers for Transport
InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 429
InterGlobe Aviation Ltd., appellant-assessee,is an airline operator that imports aircraft and parts for its operations. Between April 2018 and March 2019, the assessee imported engine stands for aircraft engines under CTI 7310 29 10/ 7310 29 90, paying customs duty and IGST.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V.Subba Rao(Technical Member) heard the appeal, which involved the classification of aircraft engine stands. The assessee described them as made from welded steel frames with strong, corrosion-resistant parts, designed to hold an engine securely during transport.The stands included a base, cradle, and caster wheels for easy movement. The cradle held the engine and had a shock system to protect it during transport. The stands could move short distances in a workshop.
Dispute Over Cenvat Credit Eligibility for Capital Goods Across Multiple Plants: CESTAT Allows Appeal Based on Single Registration
DTL Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 430
DTL Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee, manufactured load bodies for Tata LCV vehicles, parts for Indian Railways, Piaggio, Tata Motors, and wagon and AC coach parts. The assessee received a show cause notice on 30.12.2014, stating that it operated three plants in Pune. Plant No.1 had Central Excise registration, while Plants No.2 and No.3 did not.
The two member bench comprising Dr.Suvendu Kumar Pati(Judicial Member) and Anil G.Shakkarwar(Technical Member) reviewed the case and the submissions made. It noted that the Revenue's argument was that capital goods were brought into Plant No.1 (Unit No.1), cenvat credit was claimed, and the goods were later used in Plants No.2 and No.3 (Units No.2 and No.3). The Revenue claimed that, at the time, these units were not part of the Central Excise registered premises, which led to the denial of cenvat credit.
However, the appellate tribunal found that, on 24.06.2016, the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise had approved treating all three plants under the same Central Excise registration. The CESTAT concluded that the units were part of the same manufacturing unit, and there was no issue with the removal of capital goods after claiming cenvat credit.
CESTAT Dismisses Department's Appeal, Rules Fitout Lease as Deemed Sale, Not Subject to Service Tax [Read Order]
Principal Commissioner ofCentral Goods and Service Tax vs M/s ASF Buildcon Pvt Ltd. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 431
The Delhi Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) dismissed the Department’s appeal, ruling that the lease of fitouts by the assessee was a “deemed sale” under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution and not subject to service tax.
The tribunal pointed out that the term “transfer of right to use goods” was not defined in the Constitution or tax laws. The Supreme Court explained this term in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited case, where it listed five key points: the goods had to be available, both parties needed to agree on the identity of the goods, the transferee had to have the legal right to use the goods, the transferee had exclusive use of the goods, and the transferor couldn’t transfer the same rights to anyone else.
Taxability of Mobilization Advances: CESTAT Remands Matter to Commissioner for Fresh Adjudication
Ahluwalia Contracts India Ltd vs Commissioner of Service Tax-IV,Mumbai 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 432
Ahluwalia Contracts India Ltd,appellant-assessee, provided construction-related taxable services between 2007-08 and 2011-12. During an EA-2000 audit, it was found that the assessee had received advances of ₹15.66 crore in 2007-08 and ₹48.63 crore in 2008-09 but did not pay service tax on these amounts. Even when the advances were later adjusted against bills for services rendered, service tax was not paid.
The two member bench comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and Anil.G.Shakkarwar (Technical Member) heard both sides and reviewed the case records and submissions. It noted the counsel’s claim that the order was passed without a fair hearing and without considering submitted documents. To examine this, the tribunal referred to the impugned order, which showed that seven chances were given and six adjournments were granted. The assessee ’s Manager-Taxation appeared twice but failed to file any documents.
In the interest of justice, the appellate tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner for fresh decision after considering all documents and giving the assessee a fair hearing. It also directed the assessee to fully cooperate and avoid unnecessary delays.
Services by Overseas Logistics Agents Rendered Outside India not Taxable Before April 2006: CESTAT
Modern Cargo Services Private Ltd vs Commissioner of GST &Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 433
Modern Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd., engaged in freight forwarding, had hired overseas logistics agents for cargo handling at the destination and treated the payments as reimbursements. The department, however, classified these payments as consideration for “Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services” and raised a demand of ₹7.36 crore along with interest and penalties.
The two-member bench comprising C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) observed that prior to the introduction of Section 66A in April 2006, there was no statutory mechanism to tax services received from abroad.
CESTAT Declares Full CENVAT Credit Admissible on Flexographic Plates in Subsequent Financial Year
Tetra Pack India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CE & ST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 434
Tetra Pack India Pvt. Ltd,appellant-assessee,manufactures aseptic packaging of aluminium paper and is registered for Central Excise, paying duties and availing Cenvat credit. The assessee used flexographic plates on VT-100 Flexo printing machines to print designs on paper. Some plates were imported and classified under Chapter 37 of the Customs Tariff, allowing the appellant to claim Cenvat credit.
The two member bench comprising Dr.Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G.Shakkarwar reviewed the case and noted that the flexographic plates were considered components of the Flexo printing machine. According to Rule 2(A)(iii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, these plates were treated as capital goods, allowing the assessee to claim 50% of the Cenvat credit in the financial year they were brought into the factory.
The appellate tribunal found that the 50% Cenvat credit for March 2009 could have been claimed in April 2009, and similarly, the remaining 50% credit for subsequent years was eligible for claim. For the 2012-13 financial year, the remaining Cenvat credit could have been claimed in April 2013.
Detention of Goods for Export under Suspicion: CESTAT Rules No Basis for Seizure or Confiscation, Orders Release
Happy Gems vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 435
Happy Gems,appellant-assessee,presented goods for export, which were detained under suspicion on 24.01.2023. No action was taken by the authorities until 29.05.2023, when the goods were examined in the presence of independent panchas and found to match the declared description, caratage, and value.
A single member bench of Anil G.Shakkarwar(Technical Member) reviewed the case and the submissions made. It found that Customs took no action on the detained goods from 24.01.2023 to 29.05.2023. On 29.05.2023, the goods were examined and found to match the declaration in the shipping bill. As there was no reason for seizure, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner to release the goods within two weeks, upon presentation of the final order by the assessee.
Confirmation of Service Tax Demand and Penalties: CESTAT Dismisses Appeal Due to Earlier Remand
Commissioner of Service Tax - V VS Team Global Logistics Pvt Ltd 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 436
The Department-appellant had initiated proceedings against Team Global Logistics Pvt Ltd, appellant-assessee. By the impugned order, two show cause notices, dated 20th April 2011 and 17th April 2012, were disposed of. These notices confirmed the service tax demand under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, with interest under section 75, and imposed penalties under sections 78 and 76, as proposed.
The assessee's counsel had stated that the dispute for the period from October 2009 to September 2011 was already resolved by remanding the matter to the original authority, while setting aside the order for the remaining period. He also mentioned that, due to the remand, the appeal had become redundant.
The two member bench comprising Ajay Sharma(Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) had heard the Authorised Representative and reviewed the records. It found the chronology of events presented by the assessee counsel to be correct, and thus dismissed the appeal as infructuous, also disposing of the cross-objection.
Extended Period of Limitation for Excise Duty Recovery: CESTAT Confirms Demand Within Normal Limitation Period
Franke Faber India Private Limited vs Commissioner of CGST &Central Excise 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 437
Franke Faber India Private Limited,appellant-assessee,filed a miscellaneous application to correct a mistake in the tribunal's decision dated 28.10.2024. The appellant argued that the tribunal wrongly stated the extended period of limitation couldn't be applied, as the facts about the clearance of goods were known to the Department and Audit Officers in advance. The assessee contended that remanding the matter for re-determining the Central Excise duty was not justified.
The two member bench comprising S.K.Mohanty(Judicial Member) and M.M Parthiban(Technical Member) reviewed the case records and the order dated 28.10.2024. In paragraph 9.2 of the order, the tribunal stated that the extended period of limitation couldn't be applied because the Department and Audit Officers were already aware of the goods clearance details.
CESTAT Reduces Personal Penalty to ₹2 Lakhs Based on Voluntary Offer and Revised Duty Assessment
YUSUF DHANANI vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 438
Yusuf Dhanani, appellant-assessee, had challenged a personal penalty of ₹5 lakhs imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The penalty was levied after the tribunal, in its order dated 10.05.2012, had set aside the earlier penalty of ₹20 lakhs and directed the authority to reconsider the amount.
A single member bench of Dr.Suvendu Kumar Pati(Judicial Member) noted that the assessee was a Director in M/s. Divya Chemicals Limited, which went into liquidation in 2002. The dispute related to imports made nearly thirty years ago. At the time, the law allowed a higher penalty under Section 112(a)(ii), but the provisions were later amended in 2015, capping the penalty at 10% of the duty from 14.05.2017.
Considering the age of the case, the revised duty amount, and the appellant’s willingness to settle, the CESTAT held that restricting the penalty to ₹2 lakhs was justified. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, reducing the personal penalty from ₹5 lakhs to ₹2 lakhs, to be adjusted against the pre-deposit. The cross-objection from the respondent department was also dismissed.
Time-Barred Appeal u/s 128 of Customs Act: CESTAT Dismisses Appeal Due to Delay Beyond Deadline
S.R. Electrosteel Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 439
S.R. Electrosteel Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee had its appeal listed on 14.05.2024 and 17.09.2024, but no one appeared on its behalf on either date. The assessee had sent a letter dated 08.05.2024 to the Deputy Registrar, requesting the appeal be decided on merits. As there was no request for adjournment, the tribunal heard and decided the appeal based on available records and with assistance from the department’s representative.
The two member bench comprising S.K.Mohanty(Judicial Member) and M.M Parthiban(Technical Member) observed that under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, an appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date the order is communicated, with a further 30 days allowed at the discretion of the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the order was communicated on 17.06.2013, so the final deadline expired on 16.09.2013. Since the appeal was filed on 01.11.2013, it was clearly time-barred.
Taxability of E-Seva Services under Business Support Services; CESTAT Rules Services Not Taxable as Government Functions
M/s. CMS Computers Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central GST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 440
CMS Computers Ltd..appellant-assessee, filed an appeal against the order dated 31.12.2018, which confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 24.51 crore and imposed penalties.The assessee had agreements with several State Governments and bodies in seven states, including Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra, to provide E-Seva services. These services included bill payments, issuing certificates, and handling applications for water connections, traffic fines, and passport forms.
The two member bench comprising Ajay Sharma(Judicial Member) and Anil.G.Shakkarwar(Technical Member) reviewed the case with the Chartered Accountant for the appellant and the Special Counsel for the Revenue. The appeal involved three services, and the tribunal decided on each one separately before addressing the common issues of the extended period of limitation and penalties.
Refund of Service Tax Paid Before GST Rollout: CESTAT Upholds Claim under Finance Act
M/s. Sheetal Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. vs AssistantCommissioner of CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 441
Sheetal Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee,exported cut and polished diamonds after procuring rough diamonds and carrying out the necessary manufacturing process. To meet buyer requirements, it got the final products certified by GIA Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd., paying Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).
A single member bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati(Judicial Member)reviewed the case record, legal provisions, and submissions from both sides. It found that under Section 142 and Section 174 of the CGST Act, Service Tax paid before GST began had to be handled under the old Finance Act, 1994, and related rules.
The appellate tribunal noted that the assessee issued export invoices after 01.07.2017 and rightly filed refund claims under the earlier law. It held that the refund sanctioning authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) were wrong in treating the CGST Act as the "existing law."
Wilful Concealment for Service Tax Evasion Not Attributable When Dept. Authorities Differ on Taxability of Services: CESTAT
M/S. Bhardwaj Construction and Electricals vs Commissioner ofCGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 442
Bhardwaj Construction and Electricals , the assessee is rendering labor supply services to Nagar Nigam, Kota, for the purpose of maintaining street lights, installing cables, installing new light fixtures on poles, erecting PCC/RCC poles, and drawing cables in accordance with different work orders. Although the assesses failed to register for service tax or file service tax returns, the Department discovered that they were offering taxable services to Nagar Nigam.
The two-member bench of P.V. Subba Rao (technical) and Binu Tamta (judicial) has noted that no suppression or willful concealment with the intention of avoiding payment of duty can be attributed to the assessee when the two departmental authorities disagree on the taxability of the services under a particular category.
According to the Tribunal's opinion, "the unique circumstances of this case also do not justify invoking the extended period of limitation for the simple reason that the Adjudicating Authority had classified the services under the category of "Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service," while the Adjudicating Authority had made them taxable under the category of "Management, Maintenance or Repair Service."
Terminal Handling Charges May Fall under ‘Port Services’: CESTAT Remands Export Refund Dispute for Verification
M/s. General Export Enterprises vs Commissioner Service Tax -II 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 443
General Export Enterprises, the appellant, had claimed a refund of Rs. 11,43,104 towards service tax paid on input services used for the export of goods between July 2008 and December 2008. The refund was sought under Notification No. 41/2007-ST, which allows a refund of service tax paid on specified services used for export.
The two-member bench of C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) observed that terminal handling charges, if levied by persons authorized by the port, would fall within the definition of ‘port services.’
The tribunal held that the service classification by the provider could not be the sole basis for the denial of a refund without examining whether the service was, in substance, port-related and provided by an authorized entity.
Rebate Eligibility on Exported Services Depends on Date of Service Provision, Not Payment Receipt: CESTAT
3i India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 444
3i India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, provided investment advisory services to a client in the United Kingdom between April and June 2012 and raised an invoice on June 29, 2012. The payment, however, was received later on December 20, 2012, in convertible foreign exchange.
The two-member bench, comprising Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) and Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member), found that payment receipt is a condition for export, but the date of service provision determines eligibility under the rebate notification.
The tribunal held that since the services were rendered and invoiced before the rescission of the notification, rebate eligibility remained intact. The tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order and restored the original rebate sanction. The appeal was allowed.
No Use of Cenvat Credit in Trading: CESTAT Quashes ₹634 Crore Service Tax Demand
Tenormac Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CGST & CE,Belapur 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 445
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that the Cenvat credit availed by Tenormac Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was not used for trading activities and set aside the Rs. 634 crore service tax demand raised by the department.
The two-member bench comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) observed that the show cause notice was based entirely on the appellant’s own ST-3 returns, which were duly filed, and that there was no evidence of suppression or intent to evade tax.
The tribunal found no substantive proof that the appellant had engaged in trading of telecom equipment during the audit period or that the Cenvat credit availed was used for non-taxable purposes. The tribunal held that the reversal of credit by the appellant further weakened the department’s case.
No Service Tax on Post-Occupancy Flat Sales: CESTAT
Commissioner of Service Tax-VI vs Rustomjee Evershine JointVenture 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 446
In this case, Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture, respondent-assessee, was building a residential complex called ‘Global City’ in Virar (West), Distt. Palghar, Maharashtra. During an audit of their records from April 2010 to March 2014, it was found that service tax was paid on advances for flats booked before the ‘Occupancy Certificate’ was issued, but no tax was paid on payments for flats booked after the certificate.
The two member bench comprising Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and Anil.G.Shakkarwar(Technical Member) heard both sides and reviewed the records, written submissions, and relevant case laws. It noted that under Section 66E(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, construction of a building intended for sale is considered a declared service, unless full payment is received after the issuance of a completion certificate by a competent authority such as an architect, engineer, or surveyor.
CESTAT Rules "Liquid Seaweed Concentrate" as Fertilizer, Not Plant Growth Regulator, Citing Chemical Composition
EXCEL CROP CARE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 447
Excel Crop Care Limited, appellant-assessee, had imported "Liquid Seaweed Concentrate (Crop Plus)" from the USA and filed three Bills of Entry, classifying the goods under CTI 3101 0099. The goods were self-assessed, duty was paid, and they were cleared for home consumption.
The two member bench comprising S.K.Mohanty(Judicial Member) and M.M.Parthiban(Technical Member) examined the case records and found that the Show-Cause Notice dated 19.05.2017 proposed reclassifying the imported goods as "Plant Growth Regulator" under CTI 3808 9340, but did not clearly explain why the original classification under CTI 3101 0099 was wrong.
The appellate tribunal noted that the goods contained 28% organic components from seaweed and 9.8% Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potash, based on the certificate of analysis. Since most of the goods' composition related to fertilizers, they could not be treated as plant growth regulators.
Refund Rejection for CVD and ACD on Imports : CESTAT Allows Claim Citing Non-Passing of Duty Burden
M/s EMM EII Wooltex vs Commissioner of Customs 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 448
EMM EII Wooltex,appellant-assessee,imported various textile articles and filed Bill of Entry No. 9635405 dated 10.05.2017 for an assessable value of Rs. 23,07,004/-. During examination, the department found discrepancies between the goods and the declaration. Based on the assessee’s request, the case was adjudicated with fines and penalties.
A single member bench of P.Anjani Kumar(Technical Member) heard both sides and examined the records. It noted that the original authority found no bar of unjust enrichment but still proposed recovery of differential amounts after reassessment of CVD and ACD.
CESTAT Rejects Refund Claim on Service Tax for Educational Courses Not Recognized by YCMOU During Relevant Period
MAHARASHTRA KNOWLEDGE CORPRATION LTD vs COMMISSIONER SERVICETAX-I PUNE 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 449
Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd.,appellant-assessee, had registered for providing services such as maintenance, IT supply, business support, and coaching. It started offering WAVE courses in 2011 under an agreement dated 07.06.2011 and began KLiC diploma courses from 01.04.2014. An agreement with YCMOU was signed on 30.03.2015, after which both WAVE and KLiC courses were continued, and course fees were collected from students.
The two member bench comprising Dr.Suvendu Kumar Pati(Judicial Member) adn Anil G.Shakkarwar(Technical Member) looked at the appeal papers, submissions from both sides, the law, and earlier decisions. It found that the assessee had not received recognition from YCMOU before 31.03.2015. The letter dated 20.06.2016 was only a post-dated approval and could not be accepted under Section 66D of the Finance Act. The documents showed that students enrolled in 2014 but received certificates only in 2016 after recognition was given.
Dispute Amount Paid as Excise Duty Under Protest After Clearance of Goods is Not Covered by Unjust Enrichment: CESTAT
M/s. Oiles India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise& CGST 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 450
The appellant, Oiles India Pvt. Ltd., obtained an Investment Subsidy against an Entitlement Certificate approved under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy of 2010; this was applied to their returns for the months of January 2014 through June 2015 in order to pay VAT and CST.
Although the Tribunal has previously ruled in other circumstances that the defense of unjust enrichment does not apply in cases where duty deposits were refunded under protest during the investigation, the Adjudicating Authority has already made a decision on the bar of unjust enrichment.
According to the judicial member Binu Tamta's single bench, the burden of any money paid after supplies have been made whether as a deposit or tax cannot be transferred to the assessee, and as a result, the test of unjust enrichment is not relevant.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
