The CESTAT Ahmedabad upholds Commissioner (Appeals)’ decision to remand the C.C.E. & S.T Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd case back to adjudicating authority for re-examination of documentary evidence regarding unjust enrichment.
CESTAT Chennai held that the provisions made in the books of account by the appellant as per the GAAP towards sharing the expenditure on account of receipt of sponsorship services cannot be subjected to tax.
CESTAT set aside the order demanding excise duty and held that the buyer who has paid a valuable consideration could not be proceeded upon by taking the aid of a larger period of limitation as per Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unless it is proved that the buyer was also involved in fraud.
CESTAT Chennai held that duty demand on semi-finished goods and finished goods not sustainable as goods are exported on payment of duty under section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Kolkata held that goods imported separately by two different importers cannot be clubbed for classification purpose. Goods imported by appellants not in CDK condition cannot be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 87038040.
CESTAT Chennai held that when Form-H has been produced to establish that the goods have been exported the value of such clearances would not be included in the aggregate value so as to deny the SSI exemption.
CESTAT Chennai held that claim of wrong availment of abatement via ST-3 returns doesn’t amount to mis-declaration. Hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and demand for normal period sustained.
CESTAT Chennai held that duty burden is shifted to the appellant unit only because facility under rule 12BB is opted. Also, penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unwarranted when duty liability is paid with interest.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that to avail abatement under Notification No. 01/2006-ST, the cost of material provided by the service recipient must be included in the gross value of construction service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad holds that no separate service tax can be levied on the commission received by the appellant from BSNL, when it’s included in the gross sale price of SIM cards. This verdict aligns with previous judgments favoring the assessee.
