CESTAT Hyderabad set aside a service tax demand on rent-a-cab services provided to an SEZ unit after holding that the SEZ Act has overriding effect over the Finance Act notification. The Tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be denied based on the notification’s condition when Section 26 of the SEZ Act provides the benefit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee wrongly availed Cenvat credit on Bills of Entry already used by its manufacturing unit. The demand and penalty were upheld as the credit had no nexus with service activities.
CESTAT Kolkata held that horticulture activities such as garden maintenance and plant care fall within agricultural services and are not liable to Service Tax. The Tribunal therefore set aside the major portion of the tax demand raised on this turnover.
The Tribunal held that an amount paid under protest before adjudication cannot be treated as duty under the Central Excise Act. It ruled that interest at 12% per annum must be paid from the date of deposit until refund.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is not sustainable in absence of cogent, tangible or corroborative evidence linking connection of appellant in fraudulent export by forming a syndicate. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and penalty is set aside.
The Tribunal held that absence of a show cause notice under Section 28(1) vitiated the demand. Failure to produce the notice even after ten years proved fatal to the Revenues case.
The Tribunal held that a prior judicial decision cannot be classified as additional evidence under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules. Since the issue was already settled and affirmed by the Supreme Court, the remand order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that recovery under Section 28AAA cannot proceed unless FPS scrips are cancelled by DGFT. In absence of cancellation, duty demand and penalties were set aside.
The Tribunal held that Customs cannot reject a higher transaction value to redetermine a lower value for imposing anti-dumping duty. Rule 12 does not authorize downward revision merely to levy ADD.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement of witness recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure prescribed under section 138B of the Customs Act is not followed. Accordingly, penalty imposed u/s. 112(a) is set aside.
