CESTAT Hyderabad held that extended period of limitation can be invoked only when there is willful suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of service tax.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the goods are to be assessed in the form they are produced for assessment. Accordingly, goods cleared as fruit pulp cannot be assessed and duty cannot be demanded on the basis of sale price of fruit juice.
CESTAT Delhi held that proviso to Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules specifically debars the payment of Clean Energy Cess by use of cenvat credit taken under Rule 3(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Accordingly, intent of legislation is very clear not to allow the cenvat credit of Clean Energy Cess.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that direct participation and knowledge on the part of the person has to be established. In absence of sufficient evidence, penalty u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be levied.
CESTAT Delhi held that if applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or estopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage.
CESTAT New Delhi held that Goods Declaration GD-1 (Transhipment Permit) is a sufficient document to establish the origin of the goods imported from Afghanistan. Accordingly, the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 99/2011-Cus dated 9.11.2011.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the process of slitting jumbo rolls does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Delhi held that payments received for arranging and operating of outbound tour is export of service and hence service tax not payable on the same.
CESTAT Delhi held that refund of transitional credit entitled to the assessee, as the assessee was unable to file TRAN-1 due to the technical glitches.
CESTAT Mumbai held that CENVAT credit is available against invoices and also against debit notes which contains all the substantial information as prescribed in rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
