CESTAT Chennai held that the extended limitation period could not be applied where the dispute involved interpretation of exemption and export provisions. Since all transactions were disclosed in books and returns, the demand was held time-barred.
CESTAT Chennai remanded an excise valuation dispute after finding that the CAS-4 certificates required factual verification. The Tribunal also held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked in the absence of clear allegations of suppression.
The Tribunal ruled that organising symposiums and providing support services for discussions on tropical diseases cannot be classified as Event Management Services. The order partially allowed the appeal while upholding tax on Scientific Consultancy Services.
CESTAT Chennai held that Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution was correctly classifiable under CTH 9018 as the issue had already been decided in the importer’s favour and upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal rejected the Department’s approach of granting interest only on 7.5% statutory pre-deposit. It held that interest was payable on the entire ₹15 lakh deposited during investigation.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that procedural defects in appeal filings are curable and cannot justify outright dismissal without granting an opportunity for correction. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
CESTAT Bangalore held that differential service tax could not be demanded by reclassifying erection and installation services as Works Contract Service. The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly paid VAT on goods and service tax on the service component.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs authorities cannot enhance declared transaction value without first following the mandatory two-step verification process under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Tribunal ruled that the Department failed to establish valid grounds for rejecting the declared value.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the Government department was aware of service tax liability because service tax had been specifically included in the project price bids. The Tribunal treated the project as an EPC contract falling under Works Contract Services.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that before the 2016 amendment, there was no prohibition under the Cenvat Credit Rules against using basic excise duty credit for payment of NCCD. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue’s demand for recovery of ₹4.53 crore.
