The case examined whether authorities could revoke a G-card under existing regulations. The Tribunal held that no such power exists and ordered restoration of the G-card.
The issue involved enhancement of value of imported second-hand machinery. The Tribunal held that rejection of the load port certificate was unjustified, restoring the declared transaction value.
The Tribunal held that service tax cannot be demanded again under RCM if already paid by the service provider. However, the benefit applies only when full payment is conclusively proven.
The issue was whether seat adjustment components qualify as seat parts or auto parts. CESTAT held they are integral seat parts under CTI 9401, overturning reclassification and duty demand.
Composite contracts involving supply of materials could not be taxed under construction or other service categories and only the service portion was liable to tax.
The case involved a refund claim filed years after the taxpayer became aware of excess payment. The Tribunal held that delay under Section 11B barred the claim, leading to dismissal.
The Tribunal found that the show cause notice did not identify the relevant provision under Business Auxiliary Services. It held that absence of specific legal basis renders the demand unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that imports across multiple consignments without one-to-one correlation cannot be treated as complete drones. It set aside the denial of provisional release.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that seizure of imported ‘Roasted Areca Nuts’ on the basis of contradictory CRCL reports is not justifiable since report failed to account for low moisture levels. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and detained goods are directed to be released.
The issue was whether transportation and insurance charges should be excluded from assessable value. The Tribunal held they must be included since delivery occurred at the buyer’s premises, making them part of transaction value.
