The Tribunal held that Notification 1/2016-ST retrospectively expands “specified services,” making head-office services used for export eligible for refund. Rejections based on pre-amendment interpretation were set aside with limited remand for verification.
CESTAT Chennai set aside a ₹92 lakh customs demand on imported natural rubber latex, holding the show cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal ruled that without proof of wilful misstatement, extended limitation cannot apply.
The High Court set aside the discharge of a company director in proceedings under Section 276B, holding that the Trial Court’s finding was common and already overturned for the Managing Director. The matter was remitted, granting liberty to contest involvement in day-to-day affairs.
The Court held that the two-year limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act begins from the date of payment under the correct head. Refund rejection as time-barred was quashed.
The Tribunal held that once the return is accepted as valid under Section 139(1), denial of carry forward loss on belated filing grounds is contradictory and unsustainable.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that internally and externally threaded elbows, bends, tees, sleeves and crosses must be classified under specific tariff headings based on material composition. The Authority held that specific entries prevail over general or residuary classifications under the Customs Tariff Act.
The Tribunal held that the contractor failed to fully pass on GST input tax credit benefits under Section 171. It directed refund of ₹9.36 lakh proportionate amount with interest for completed work.
The Tribunal held that once records were audited and within departmental knowledge, extended limitation under Section 73 could not be invoked again, rendering the demand time-barred.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that 176 customized aircraft components are classifiable under CTH 88073000 as Other parts of aeroplanes. The Authority held that the goods are exclusively designed for aircraft use and are not parts of general use under Section XVII Notes.
CAAR Mumbai refused to issue a fresh ruling on roasted areca nut classification, holding that the issue was already decided by the Madras High Court. The statutory bar under Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act was applied.
