CESTAT held that local transportation of goods, even with incidental loading, cannot be taxed as cargo handling when contracts are divisible. The service tax demand and penalty were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal examined whether arm and blade assemblies could be treated as complete windscreen wipers. It held that without a motor, the goods are only parts and cannot be reclassified as complete articles.
The issue was whether penalty for importing a used car should be sustained. The Tribunal reduced the penalty considering the importer’s circumstances and lack of deliberate violation.
CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax demand order set aside since show cause notice [SCN] and adjudication order not duly served upon the appellant. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that no demand of service tax can be made simply based on the difference between the Balance Sheet and the ST-3 returns without providing any explanation about the nature of service on which service tax is payable. Thus, order is set aside to that extent.
CESTAT held that Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations cap penalties at ₹50,000. The Revenue cannot seek a higher penalty or licence revocation beyond what the rules permit.
CESTAT held that dummy export documents prepared for internal charge calculation did not amount to fraud. With no evidence of misuse, penalties on the CFS and its officials were quashed.
The tribunal remanded the case after finding that the customs authorities failed to explain how the enhanced value was arrived at. It held that valuation being the foundation for duty and penalties must be supported by a clear methodology.
CESTAT held that duty drawback must be recovered when genuine sale proceeds of exports are not realised. Mere receipt of unrelated remittances does not satisfy Rule 16A.
The tribunal held that since the IEC alert was lifted after the original order, the refund claim required fresh consideration. The matter was remanded to allow document submission and lawful adjudication.
