CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit on outward transportation and insurance services cannot be denied where goods are sold on FOR destination basis and the buyer’s premises is the place of removal. The Tribunal relied on earlier Larger Bench and Supreme Court-based principles for determining admissibility of credit.
The Chennai CESTAT held that imported electric scooter components could not be classified as complete CKD vehicles under Rule 2(a) because battery packs were never imported with the consignments.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that liquidated damages received for contractual delays cannot be treated as consideration for “tolerating an act” under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal set aside service tax demand and penalty imposed on such receipts.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that sugar syrup used in biscuit manufacturing could not be classified under tariff heading 17029090 since its fructose content was only 31%. The Tribunal set aside excise duty demands and penalties imposed on the manufacturer.
Tribunal upheld findings of fraud involving third-party shipping bills and false export obligation fulfilment but reduced the quantum of penalties. It observed that appellant’s liability could not exceed comparable penalties imposed on principal offenders.
CESTAT Chennai held that recipients of Goods Transport Operator services were liable to pay service tax for 1997-98 under retrospective amendments. However, interest demand was set aside because the assessee filed the prescribed return within the statutory time limit.
CESTAT Delhi held that alleged receipt of one raw material, namely Scented Tobacco, was insufficient to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance of Gutka. The Tribunal set aside excise duty demand due to lack of corroborative evidence regarding other raw materials and production activity.
Tribunal ruled that reimbursable expenses such as freight, warehousing, and terminal handling charges were not liable to service tax. Decision followed Supreme Court judgment declaring Rule 5(1) beyond scope of Sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act.
CESTAT Delhi remanded the matter after finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the appellant’s affidavit and explanation regarding delayed receipt of the order. The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances required fresh examination.
CESTAT Mumbai upheld demand, interest, and penalty for failure to reverse SAD Cenvat credit on imported inputs transferred between units. The Tribunal held that extended limitation was valid due to suppression in ER-1 returns.
