CESTAT ruled that Section 51 of the SEZ Act supports refund when services are used for authorised operations despite documentation issues.
CESTAT ruled that the appeal abated as no legal representative applied for continuance after the appellant’s death under Rule 22.
CESTAT held receipts were inclusive of service tax and directed recomputation after granting cum-tax benefit and considering TDS.
CESTAT held that Income Tax data without corroborative evidence cannot establish service tax liability and quashed the demand.
CESTAT held CRC was not payable as Customs failed to prove full-day deployment. MOT charges alone applied for limited supervision services.
CESTAT held the HS code in the Certificate of Origin cannot override Customs Tariff classification. Exemption and all consequential relief were allowed.
The Tribunal held that service tax under RCM could not be demanded where the department failed to prove that the assessee held mining rights or paid royalty for a mining licence. It also ruled that reliance solely on balance sheet entries was insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory post-import obligations under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. Following cancellation of the CDECs, the customs duty demand, confiscation and penalties were upheld.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund cannot be denied merely because invoices do not mention batch numbers if the required correlation is established through contemporaneous records. The matter was remanded for limited verification.
CESTAT held that the appellant produced sufficient contractual and documentary evidence to establish that the incidence of OID Cess had not been passed on to the buyer. It therefore rejected the Department’s plea of unjust enrichment.
