CESTAT Ahmedabad held that procedural defects in appeal filings are curable and cannot justify outright dismissal without granting an opportunity for correction. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that before the 2016 amendment, there was no prohibition under the Cenvat Credit Rules against using basic excise duty credit for payment of NCCD. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue’s demand for recovery of ₹4.53 crore.
The issue was whether transportation and insurance charges should be excluded from assessable value. The Tribunal held they must be included since delivery occurred at the buyer’s premises, making them part of transaction value.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to clarify whether import of fabrics was permitted under the Letter of Permission. The ruling highlights the impact of unclear authorizations on exemption claims.
The decision held that imports conducted through State Trading Enterprises are valid even where the importer is not the direct importer. It emphasized compliance with policy structure rather than form.
The Tribunal interpreted Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to allow refund of taxes paid under existing law. It held that such claims survive the repeal of earlier statutes. The appeal was allowed and remanded.
The case examined whether small compositional changes affect eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal ruled that even minor variations matter under tax law. The decision emphasizes strict compliance with notification conditions.
The Tribunal held that distribution of Cenvat credit among units was optional prior to the 2016 amendment. Availing full credit in one unit was found legally valid, leading to the setting aside of the demand.
The department argued that credit must be split across units. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 7 allowed discretionary distribution. The decision clarifies the scope of ISD credit rules before amendment.
The issue involved suspension of a Customs Broker licence for alleged lapses in handling an import consignment. The Tribunal held that failure to verify importer credentials and ensure proper examination justified suspension. The key takeaway is that strict due diligence obligations apply to Customs Brokers.
