The Tribunal referred to HSN notes stating that Chapter 9616 does not cover dispersing appliances falling under Chapter 8424. Based on this reasoning, the imported soap dispenser was classified under CTI 8424 89 90.
CESTAT Chennai held that an exporter cannot be taxed under reverse charge for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds where no service recipient relationship was established with the foreign bank.
CESTAT Mumbai held that a mere demand notice cannot replace the statutory show cause notice required under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal ruled that recovery proceedings initiated without proper notice were legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the Settlement Commission’s duty calculations did not establish any CVD component for certain advance licences, making the corresponding credit claim unsustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules applies only when goods are consumed by the assessee or on its behalf. Since the plastic caps were used by the principal manufacturer and not captively consumed by the job worker, the duty demand was set aside.
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax demand raised merely on differences between ST-3 returns and Income Tax Returns without proper examination of records was unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Additional Excise Duty introduced from 11.07.2014 could not be imposed on goods manufactured before the levy came into force, even if cleared later.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that mandarin juice concentrate falls under “juice of any other single citrus fruit” and not orange juice because the Customs Tariff separately classifies oranges and mandarins. The Tribunal upheld duty demand for the normal period but quashed penalties and extended limitation.
The CESTAT Delhi held that transfer of land development rights amounts to transfer of immovable property and not a taxable service. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand, holding that such transactions fall outside Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that once a partnership firm is penalized under customs law, a separate penalty on its partner for the same contravention cannot be imposed in absence of specific statutory provision.
