A show cause notice was issued proposing reclassification, recovery of differential duty under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, and imposition of penalties. Additional Director General confirmed the demand, ordered recovery of duty with interest, and imposed penalties including a penalty on Manager of the appellant company. Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeals.
The Tribunal held that services provided under the DDU-GKY scheme were covered by exemption notifications, eliminating service tax liability for the entire disputed period.
CESTAT Chennai held that export benefit cannot be denied unilaterally by the Customs authorities. Thus, unilateral denial of DEPB benefits by Customs authority not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
CESTAT Allahabad held that demand invoking extended period of limitation cannot be sustained since there was bona fide that services fall under negative list. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
CESTAT held that regular filing of returns and disclosure during audits negates allegations of suppression of facts. The demand based on extended limitation was therefore unsustainable.
he tribunal refused to accept the appellant’s submissions regarding manpower supply service to five hotels, relying on reasons recorded in related appeals decided on the same date.
CESTAT Mumbai held that accumulated credit of Education Cess, SHE Cess, and KKC cannot be transitioned or refunded because these levies were not subsumed under the GST regime.
CESTAT Bangalore held that revocation of a Customs Broker license is a harsh penalty that requires clear proof of involvement in fraud. In the absence of such evidence, the tribunal set aside the license revocation but retained a penalty.
The Tribunal found that the importer had sought first-check examination and the Chartered Engineers report confirmed the declared description of goods. As a result, allegations of mis-declaration and consequent penalties were held unsustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that job work processes undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture. Since the activity could not simultaneously be treated as an exempted service, the Cenvat demand was set aside.
