CESTAT Ahmedabad held that non-submission of Forms A-1 and A-2 is only a procedural lapse. It allowed the exemption as the services were admittedly provided to an SEZ unit.
CESTAT held that a composite handling and transportation contract cannot be artificially split to levy service tax under the GTA category.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that sugar exported out of India was exempt from the whole of the sugar cess under the 1993 exemption notification. Since the exports were undisputed, the Tribunal set aside the demand, interest, and penalty.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that bagasse is an agricultural waste and not a manufactured product, making Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules inapplicable. Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeals)’ order and dismissed Revenue’s demand for credit reversal, interest, and penalty.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that Cenvat Credit cannot be retained when based on invoices issued by fake or non-existent suppliers. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to verify supplier identity as required under Rule 7(2).
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Service Tax could not be recovered again from the recipient under RCM when the transporter had already collected and deposited the tax. The demand, interest, and penalties were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the Settlement Commission’s duty calculations did not establish any CVD component for certain advance licences, making the corresponding credit claim unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Additional Excise Duty introduced from 11.07.2014 could not be imposed on goods manufactured before the levy came into force, even if cleared later.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that once a partnership firm is penalized under customs law, a separate penalty on its partner for the same contravention cannot be imposed in absence of specific statutory provision.
The Tribunal rejected the Department’s approach of granting interest only on 7.5% statutory pre-deposit. It held that interest was payable on the entire ₹15 lakh deposited during investigation.
