CESTAT Chennai held that an importer was entitled to concessional CVD under Notification No. 12/2012-CE because imported goods must be treated as if manufactured in India under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in SRF Ltd. and dismissed the Department’s appeal.
CESTAT Allahabad held that interest under Section 11BB becomes payable after three months from the date of the refund application, not from the appellate order granting refund. The Tribunal awarded statutory interest on the delayed refund while rejecting the claim for interest on interest.
CESTAT Chennai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the earlier Tribunal decision had already ruled that service tax on works contract services for construction of educational institutions during the disputed period was unsustainable. The Tribunal found no basis to revive the demand by reclassifying the institutions.
CESTAT Allahabad held that customs valuation cannot be enhanced solely on the basis of a Chartered Engineer’s report that is unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal set aside the enhanced duty, confiscation and penalties after finding no basis for re-determination of value.
CESTAT Chennai held that a subcontractor arranging transportation on behalf of a principal contractor was not the person liable to pay freight under GTA provisions. The demand was set aside as the principal contractor had already discharged service tax, making the levy unsustainable.
The appellant claimed to be only a commission agent, but witness statements and records showed involvement in procurement, logistics, documentation, and receipt of export proceeds. The Tribunal held that these facts established participation in the export scheme and justified penalty.
CESTAT Chennai held that concessional CVD on imported cement cannot be denied merely because 50 kg bags carried printed RSP. The Tribunal ruled that the department must establish actual retail sale or misuse of the exemption.
The Tribunal held that when the importer itself was exonerated on the ground that the classification dispute was interpretational, Customs Brokers acting on the importer’s instructions could not be penalized for abetment. The penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that denial of effective cross-examination in proceedings founded on statements and investigation reports caused serious prejudice to the Customs Broker. Since the revocation proceedings lacked procedural fairness, the impugned order was set aside.
CESTAT Chennai: Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed for Non-Compliance of Pre-Deposit When Mandatory Deposit Was Already Made; Matter Remanded on Merits
