The Tribunal held that Rule 11(3) does not apply where common inputs are used for both exempted and dutiable products. Credit balances could continue to be utilised for payment of duty on dutiable goods.
The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority failed to properly analyse BIS guidance documents and the applicable Quality Control framework. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration through a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that test reports from two live consignments could not be mechanically applied to past imports without separate evidence. Each Bill of Entry was treated as an independent assessment.
The Mumbai Bench of CESTAT held that proceedings arising from the same investigation and based on identical evidence could not be reopened after earlier orders had attained finality. The Tribunal upheld the order dropping the show cause notice.
The Chennai Bench of CESTAT held that preferential duty benefits under the Indo–Thailand FTA could not be denied by unilaterally rejecting a Certificate of Origin. The Tribunal ruled that authorities must follow the verification procedure prescribed under the Interim Rules of Origin.
CESTAT Chennai held that SAD refund cannot be denied when original files were misplaced by the department and substantive conditions stood satisfied. Procedural defects in reconstructed invoices were held insufficient to defeat refund entitlement.
The Tribunal held that once an identical dispute involving the same assessee had been settled by a coordinate Bench, there was no basis to uphold the subsequent demand. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
CESTAT Delhi held that transportation and distribution of newspapers by road constituted services covered under Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal ruled that incidental loading and unloading activities did not alter the essential character of the service.
The Tribunal observed that multiple departmental orders and ER-1 returns consistently reflected classification under CETI 2403 99 10. The later stand taken in the show cause notice was found to be inconsistent with the department’s earlier conduct. The impugned order was therefore set aside.
CESTAT Delhi sustained the service tax demand after finding that the royalty amounts were based on receipts acknowledged by the appellant’s Director. The Tribunal held that the demand covered only amounts actually received.
