The Tribunal held that relationship alone is insufficient to reject transaction value without proof of price influence. It ruled that absence of such evidence invalidates demand and penalties.
CESTAT Mumbai held that activity trackers/fitness band are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8517 6290 as communicable device and not under Customs Tariff Item 9029 1090 as pedometer. Accordingly, classification done by department accepted.
The Tribunal held that service tax applies only where a goods transport agency issues a consignment note. It ruled that transport by individual truck operators does not attract tax under GTA provisions.
The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between procedural and substantive requirements in exemption notifications. It held that procedural lapses should not result in denial of benefits. The ruling supports a pragmatic approach to compliance.
The issue involved taxability of management and incentive fees earned by an asset reconstruction company. The tribunal set aside the demand due to incorrect classification and invalid invocation of extended limitation.
The Tribunal held that once an issue is decided up to the Supreme Court, it cannot be reopened. The Department was barred from challenging the same matter again.
The Tribunal held that minor excess quantity supplied to cover transit damage does not amount to mis-declaration. It ruled that confiscation and penalty were not justified.
The Tribunal held that goods retained the essential character of wheelchairs despite added toileting facility. It ruled that exemption cannot be denied when mobility remains the primary function.
The Tribunal held that duty demand cannot be sustained without evidence showing how IGCR rules were violated. In absence of proof of improper clearance, the demand and penalty were set aside.
The issue involved denial of service tax refund on employee insurance services in an SEZ unit. The Tribunal held that such insurance services fall within authorised operations and cannot be excluded.
