CESTAT Chennai held that strict transaction-wise correlation between factory clearances and retail sales was impractical in the jewellery business. The Tribunal allowed discount abatement based on consolidated sales data and Chartered Accountant certificates.
CESTAT Mumbai held that computer printouts and email records could not be relied upon for customs duty demands because statutory requirements under Section 138C of the Customs Act were not followed.
The Tribunal held that invocation of the five-year limitation period requires proof of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, which was absent in the case.
CESTAT Mumbai held that unlocking and activating mobile phones before export only amounted to product configuration and not “use” under the Drawback Rules. The Tribunal therefore quashed confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on the exporter.
CESTAT Kolkata held that granules cleared to job workers for conversion into PPCP containers could not be treated as traded goods. The Tribunal ruled that reversal of credit under Rule 3(5) had been properly carried out.
Tribunal observed that where goods are sold on FOR destination basis, the buyer’s premises may constitute the place of removal. If established on facts, CENVAT credit on outward transportation services would be admissible.
Tribunal held that Customs authorities could not reclassify imported industrial composite solvent as kerosene when all mandatory BIS specifications were not tested. It observed that missing parameters rendered the laboratory reports inconclusive and legally unreliable.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess paid through MEIS duty credit scrips for past imports constituted valid discharge of customs duty liability. The Tribunal held that any fresh cash recovery by the Revenue would amount to impermissible double recovery.
Tribunal ruled that payments made for transfer of technology, technical documents, and manufacturing assistance under an inter-governmental agreement did not amount to Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service. It held that the arrangement related to technology transfer for aircraft production and not taxable consultancy.
CESTAT Chennai held that mere trading in air tickets did not amount to taxable “Tour Operator” service. The Tribunal ruled that retaining discounts on ticket sales was outside the scope of service tax.
