The Tribunal ruled that when customs authorities had examined and accepted the classification earlier, suppression of facts cannot be alleged. The extended period of limitation was therefore held to be invalid.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to clarify whether import of fabrics was permitted under the Letter of Permission. The ruling highlights the impact of unclear authorizations on exemption claims.
The Tribunal held that works contract and manpower services were integrally linked to electricity transmission. It ruled such services are covered under the negative list exemption.
The Tribunal held that moulds and dies supplied by customers form part of assessable value as additional consideration. It clarified that their amortised cost must be included in valuation of finished goods.
The Tribunal held that exemption cannot be denied based on a re-export condition imposed through a DGH certificate when such a requirement is absent in the notification.
The order highlights that both improper issuance of notices and incorrect application of law led to invalid recovery proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the demand and granted relief to the appellants.
The Tribunal set aside the demand as time-barred and unsupported by evidence beyond third-party income tax data. It held that absence of fraud or suppression invalidated extended limitation.
The Tribunal rejected the refund claim after finding that export proceeds exceeded the declared FOB value. It held that such excess creates a presumption of duty being passed on, barring refund.
Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad) The appeal before the Tribunal arose from an Order-in-Appeal upholding a demand of ₹1,95,356 towards Service Tax for the financial year 2015–16, along with interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was registered for providing “Business Auxiliary Services.” Based on […]
The Tribunal ruled that payments made during investigation become duty once appropriated in adjudication. It rejected the argument that such payments remain deposits under protest. The decision reinforces that refund claims for such amounts are subject to limitation.
