The Bangalore CESTAT held that a refund claim cannot reopen a finalized customs assessment where the importer failed to challenge the self-assessed Bill of Entry within the statutory appeal period.
CESTAT Bangalore held that services rendered by a sub-contractor for authorized operations within an SEZ are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 4/2004-ST. The Tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be denied merely because services were provided through main contractors.
The Tribunal referred to HSN notes stating that Chapter 9616 does not cover dispersing appliances falling under Chapter 8424. Based on this reasoning, the imported soap dispenser was classified under CTI 8424 89 90.
CESTAT Bangalore held that extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked as there was no suppression or intent to evade duty in defence-related software imports.
CESTAT Bangalore upheld penalty under Section 112(b) after finding that the Customs Broker knowingly arranged transportation of duty-free imported goods to locations not permitted under advance licences. The Tribunal held that such conduct amounted to aiding violation of customs conditions.
CESTAT held that sharing telecast rights of horse racing events with other clubs against downlinking charges amounted to commercial exploitation of events. Service tax demand for the post-2010 period was upheld.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the imported aerosol generator formed part of a system used for physical and chemical analysis and was correctly classifiable under CTH 9027. The Tribunal ruled that the product did not independently control or regulate parameters required for classification under CTH 9032.
The Tribunal ruled that organising symposiums and providing support services for discussions on tropical diseases cannot be classified as Event Management Services. The order partially allowed the appeal while upholding tax on Scientific Consultancy Services.
CESTAT Bangalore held that differential service tax could not be demanded by reclassifying erection and installation services as Works Contract Service. The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly paid VAT on goods and service tax on the service component.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the Government department was aware of service tax liability because service tax had been specifically included in the project price bids. The Tribunal treated the project as an EPC contract falling under Works Contract Services.
