CESTAT Mumbai held that in case of premature availment of cenvat credit on capital goods the recovery proceedings under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) would not sustain and only interest liability will arise.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services related to pollution control of the factory is covered within the term ‘input services’ as per rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence eligible for cenvat credit.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that refund of service tax on CHA services; transportation of goods by Road services; port services paid for export of goods is duly allowable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that prior to amendment i.e. till 31.03.2008 CENVAT Credit on outward transportation from the ‘place of removal’ is admissible. As entire period of dispute is pre-amendment, CENVAT Credit available and demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 leviable as involvement in clandestine manufacture and clearance is well established.
No excise duty was leviable under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the allegation of illicit clearing as the department had miserably failed to substantiate the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance by any tangible or corroborative evidence
Excise duty demand of approximately 24 crores against Volkswagen India was quashed on the amount recovered as liquidated damages on the ground of non-violation of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules,2002 and in the event of rejection of the invoice value as transaction value, it was not open to the adjudicating authority to re-determine value without recourse to Rule 6 of Central Excise Rules.
Department did not have a case that assessee had not discharged Service Tax on the agency commission received as a Steamer Agent or CHA.
Penalty under Rule 26 was justified on the proof that there were sufficient evidences adduced to allege clandestine removal and appellant had in his statement recorded under section 14 while giving the details of working of the unit had admitted that he was actively involved in the working of the unit.
CESTAT Allahabad held that legal ownership and acquisition of gold proved via documentary evidence on the other hand, the Department has not been able to provide any iota of evidence to show that the seized gold bar was smuggled. Thus confiscation under Section 121 Customs Act is unsustainable
