CESTAT Bangalore held that extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked as there was no suppression or intent to evade duty in defence-related software imports.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that seizure of foreign-marked gold without separately recorded reasons under Section 110 of the Customs Act was legally defective. The Tribunal ruled that subsequent confiscation and penalties could not survive.
The Tribunal held that conversion of digital photographs into printed photo products created a commercially distinct commodity, qualifying as manufacture rather than taxable photography service.
Bluetooth Wireless Earphones because of its Bluetooth/Wireless connectivity did not transform an earphone into a “data transmission machine” for classification purpose.
The entire demand of excise duty, interest, and penalties for alleging that assessee was merely a proxy entity created by Noble Industries to fraudulently extend the exemption period beyond its permissible tenure was set aside as exemption notification and CBEC Circulars expressly permitted manufacture of new products, relocation of eligible units within notified areas, and transfer of ownership without affecting exemption eligibility.
The CESTAT Mumbai held that placement fees collected from students by educational institutions are not taxable under manpower recruitment service. The Tribunal ruled that no consideration flowed from employers, which is essential under the charging provision.
CESTAT Mumbai held that recovery proceedings and penalty were unsustainable where inadmissible CENVAT credit was reversed before issuance of notice and remained unutilised due to sufficient credit balance.
CESTAT Delhi ruled that compensation and liquidated damages recovered for contractual breaches do not amount to consideration for tolerating an act under Section 66E(e). The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand on penalties and liquidated damages.
Chennai CESTAT ruled that services provided directly to travellers for obtaining visas do not fall under taxable Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal relied on CBEC circulars and earlier judicial precedents.
CESTAT Bangalore upheld penalty under Section 112(b) after finding that the Customs Broker knowingly arranged transportation of duty-free imported goods to locations not permitted under advance licences. The Tribunal held that such conduct amounted to aiding violation of customs conditions.
