The court upheld higher VAT by classifying woollen felt components as machinery parts, holding that their exclusive industrial use outweighed textile-based definitions.
The Tribunal held that income tax appeals cannot continue during CIRP, as the IBC moratorium bars parallel proceedings. Claims not forming part of an approved resolution plan cannot be pursued.
The High Court flagged an unexplained delay of more than ten years in finalising customs assessments after provisional release. Authorities were directed to complete assessments within six weeks.
The Tribunal examined the validity of reopening and multiple expense disallowances. While relief was granted on cash payments and reimbursed interest, statutory interest on taxes was held to be non-deductible.
CESTAT held that Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations cap penalties at ₹50,000. The Revenue cannot seek a higher penalty or licence revocation beyond what the rules permit.
CESTAT held that dummy export documents prepared for internal charge calculation did not amount to fraud. With no evidence of misuse, penalties on the CFS and its officials were quashed.
The tribunal remanded the case after finding that the customs authorities failed to explain how the enhanced value was arrived at. It held that valuation being the foundation for duty and penalties must be supported by a clear methodology.
CESTAT held that duty drawback must be recovered when genuine sale proceeds of exports are not realised. Mere receipt of unrelated remittances does not satisfy Rule 16A.
The Court refused to entertain a writ against a GST adjudication order, holding that a statutory appeal was available. The ruling reiterates that writ jurisdiction will not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists.
The court upheld customs seizure during domestic transit, holding that prima facie “reason to believe” based on suspicious circumstances is sufficient. Detailed reasons need not be recorded at the seizure stage.
