The tribunal held that a bank guarantee equal to a large portion of goods value was excessive and reduced it to 30% of the duty amount, while sustaining the bond for full value.
The case examined whether assignment of programme copyright was a service or a sale. The Tribunal held that permanent transfer of copyright is a sale liable to VAT, not service tax.
Vedanta Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai Reiterates: Once DGFT Issues EODC, Customs Cannot Deny Advance Authorization Benefits Vedanta Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [2026-VIL-158-CESTAT-CHE-CU] The Chennai Bench of the CESTAT has delivered a significant ruling wherein it was held that Customs authorities cannot question or deny duty exemption benefits once DGFT […]
The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 78 was not sustainable where Service Tax under RCM was paid prior to the show cause notice. The absence of deliberate intent and existence of reasonable cause justified waiver of penalty.
The Tribunal held that post-clearance discounts supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate cannot be rejected without evidence. Revenue’s disallowance based on assumptions was found unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that Service Tax cannot be levied merely on reimbursement figures taken from accounts without evidence of a taxable service. Reimbursement of Convention expenses was held outside the tax net.
The Tribunal held that transport services cannot be taxed as GTA without proof of consignment notes. It ruled that, in the absence of statutory documents, the freight-related Service Tax demand was unsustainable.
DRI had jurisdiction and was empowered under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 to issue show cause notices (SCN) proceedings for recovery of drawback amounts peculiarly cases involving fraudulent or erroneous grant of drawback.
CESTAT Chennai held that interactive flat panel is classified under CTH 8471 and their parts under CTH 8473 since revenue has not succeeded in discharging its burden. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
The Tribunal held that IGST demand based on alleged breach of pre-import condition was unsustainable where export obligations were fulfilled and EODCs were issued. Acceptance of EODCs and bond cancellation closed the exemption compliance.
