CESTAT Mumbai held that optional “type test charges” collected separately from customers cannot be included in the assessable value of transformers. The Tribunal ruled that post-manufacturing testing conducted at the buyer’s request does not attract Central Excise duty.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that waste mud generated during bleaching of crude palm oil cannot be treated as an excisable manufactured product. The Tribunal ruled that involuntary waste arising during refining does not attract Central Excise duty.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the imported aerosol generator formed part of a system used for physical and chemical analysis and was correctly classifiable under CTH 9027. The Tribunal ruled that the product did not independently control or regulate parameters required for classification under CTH 9032.
Tribunal held that capital goods do not lose eligibility for Cenvat credit after becoming part of an immovable plant fixed to earth. It ruled that admissibility depends on compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, not on immovability of final structure.
The Tamil Nadu AAAR held that supply of food to corporate clients under contractual arrangements amounted to contract food service taxable at 18% GST. The authority ruled that menu planning, quality checks, delivery, and service obligations went beyond mere sale of food.
CAAR Mumbai refused to entertain an advance ruling application on roasted areca nuts after noting that the classification issue had already been decided by the Madras High Court. The Authority applied the statutory bar under Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act.
CAAR Mumbai rejected an advance ruling application after holding that the classification issue relating to roasted areca nuts had already been decided by the Madras High Court. The Authority applied the statutory bar under Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act.7
The Customs Authority for Advance Ruling held that the classification dispute concerning roasted betel and areca nuts had already been decided in earlier court proceedings. The applications were therefore rejected as barred by law.
The ITAT Kolkata held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 cannot deprive an assessee of Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 and the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal treated the delay as a procedural defect.
Tribunal ruled that WhatsApp messages and digital records without corroborative evidence or proper certification could not sustain additions under the Income Tax Act.
