CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied where the assessee establishes a real and sufficient nexus between the disputed input services and its output services. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove otherwise and set aside the credit denial.
The service tax demand arose from differences between income tax records and ST-3 returns. The Tribunal ruled that Form 26AS, which formed the basis of the investigation, required proper evaluation before confirming liability.
The Tribunal found no merit in Customs’ objections relating to classification, labelling and port restrictions for the purpose of provisional release. The appeal was dismissed and release of the goods was ordered.
CESTAT Bangalore held that Air Velocity 2700 was correctly classified under CTH 8517 6260 after examining its functional characteristics. The Tribunal found that its role in receiving, synchronizing, and routing signals supported the importer’s classification.
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs Abhishek Mundhra (CESTAT Kolkata) The Revenue challenged an Order-in-Appeal that had set aside the confiscation of 15 kg of gold bangles/strips and 1,754.29 grams of silver granules, as well as penalties imposed on various noticees. The case originated from a DRI operation based on intelligence alleging that gold smuggled from […]
The Tribunal set aside a penalty under Section 114(iii) after finding no evidence that the Customs Broker knew of or participated in the alleged overvaluation of export goods. The ruling emphasizes that penalties require proof of involvement or abetment.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued more than three years after the Department became aware of the facts was time-barred. The extended period of limitation was found to be unjustified.
The Tribunal held that once an earlier show cause notice had been issued on the same issue, the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation again. The service tax demand and related liabilities were set aside.
Appellants activity of providing trailers along with drivers, crew, fuel, insurance and retaining effective control and possession thereof was appropriately classifiable under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods Service” and not under Goods Transport Agency Service.
CESTAT held that where the value of goods sent for job work had already been considered for credit reversal purposes, including it again would amount to impermissible double counting.
