The Tribunal held that mere mention of Section 112 without detailed imputation in the show cause notice cannot justify penalty. Violation of CHA Regulations alone was found insufficient to sustain penal action.
CESTAT Delhi set aside confiscation and penalty after finding no evidence that the vehicle owner knew it was used for transporting smuggled gold. The ruling clarifies that absence of knowledge defeats action under Sections 115 and 117 of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement recorded u/s. 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure contemplated u/s. 138B of the Customs Act not followed. Accordingly, penalties-imposed u/s. 112(a)(i) and 112(a)(ii) cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside a differential IGST demand, holding that CBIC’s beneficial circular clarifying 12% GST on poultry machinery parts applies retrospectively. The Tribunal ruled that payment at the lower rate stands regularised for the past period.
The Tribunal ruled that leftover offshore materials used at Bombay High had already suffered duty and were not freshly imported, making the customs demand and penalties unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that once the NCLT accepts a Resolution Plan and orders liquidation, the Revenue’s pending service tax appeal cannot survive and stands abated.
The Tribunal held that demand under Section 28 cannot be raised before finalisation of provisional assessment. As the goods were cleared provisionally, the duty demand, penalties, and confiscation were quashed.
CESTAT Delhi ruled that subscription and redemption of mutual fund units do not constitute trading under Section 66D(e) of the Finance Act. As units are cancelled upon redemption and not transferred, no CENVAT credit reversal or extended limitation applies.
CESTAT Kolkata held that demand of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism [RCM] raised merely on the basis of figures appearing in Balance Sheet without classifying the category of service is not sustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit on transport coordination services relating to employee movement is inadmissible for the period from 01.04.2011 onwards. Further, CENVAT on escort/security services may qualify as input services if the place of removal extends beyond the factory gate.
