CESTAT Allahabad held that demand invoking extended period of limitation cannot be sustained since there was bona fide that services fall under negative list. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
CESTAT held that regular filing of returns and disclosure during audits negates allegations of suppression of facts. The demand based on extended limitation was therefore unsustainable.
he tribunal refused to accept the appellant’s submissions regarding manpower supply service to five hotels, relying on reasons recorded in related appeals decided on the same date.
CESTAT Mumbai held that accumulated credit of Education Cess, SHE Cess, and KKC cannot be transitioned or refunded because these levies were not subsumed under the GST regime.
CESTAT Bangalore held that revocation of a Customs Broker license is a harsh penalty that requires clear proof of involvement in fraud. In the absence of such evidence, the tribunal set aside the license revocation but retained a penalty.
The Tribunal found that the importer had sought first-check examination and the Chartered Engineers report confirmed the declared description of goods. As a result, allegations of mis-declaration and consequent penalties were held unsustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that job work processes undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture. Since the activity could not simultaneously be treated as an exempted service, the Cenvat demand was set aside.
The Tribunal ruled that port dues collected from port users had already suffered service tax. Retention of a portion of those dues could not be subjected to tax again under another category.
CESTAT held that once Cenvat credit is reversed along with interest, it amounts to non-availment of credit, allowing the assessee to retain the benefit of the abatement notification.
The Tribunal held that customs authorities cannot discard the declared export price without valid reasons or evidence. Transaction value supported by invoices and BRC must normally be accepted.
