The dispute concerned whether coal transportation between mines and industrial facilities could be taxed as mining service. CESTAT held that the activity was transportation by road and, in the absence of consignment notes, fell under the Negative List and was not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid for outward freight and insurance was admissible where goods were delivered at the buyer’s premises and ownership passed there. The demand was set aside on merits and limitation.
The CESTAT Chennai held that where service tax was not separately recovered from recipients, the gross receipts must be treated as inclusive of tax under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The matter was remanded for fresh quantification.
Delhi CESTAT held that an importer who accepted enhanced valuation and paid duty without protest could not later challenge the assessment in appeal. The Tribunal found the acceptance of US $2.30 per kg valuation to be unconditional.
The Mumbai CESTAT remanded a service tax dispute after finding that the appellant failed to include grounds of appeal in the prescribed ST-4 form. The Tribunal held that proper pleadings are essential for meaningful appellate adjudication.
CESTAT Delhi set aside the refund rejection order after finding that issues relating to double payment of service tax and CENVAT credit eligibility required proper examination. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with an opportunity to produce supporting evidence.
CESTAT Delhi held that incorrect classification or self-assessment of imported goods does not automatically constitute misdeclaration under the Customs Act. The Tribunal set aside penalties imposed on the Customs Broker.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Indian currency cannot be confiscated under Section 121 of Customs Act without clear evidence connecting it to smuggled goods. Tribunal ruled that investigative statements alone are insufficient to justify seizure of cash as sale proceeds of smuggled gold.
CESTAT ruled that the Department failed to consider ST-3 returns and service tax already discharged by the assessee. The Tribunal held that duplicate tax demands arising from erroneous calculations could not survive.
The CESTAT Delhi held that multifunction protection devices remained classifiable as relays because their primary function continued to be protection and control of electrical systems. Additional monitoring and recording features were treated as ancillary and did not affect exemption eligibility.
