Tribunal held that capital goods do not lose eligibility for Cenvat credit after becoming part of an immovable plant fixed to earth. It ruled that admissibility depends on compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, not on immovability of final structure.
CESTAT held that hiring dredgers under bareboat charter agreements amounts to transfer of right to use goods and therefore cannot be taxed as supply of tangible goods service. The Tribunal quashed the entire service tax demand raised on reverse charge basis.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that statements relied upon against assessees cannot be used without following the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The matters were remanded after finding violation of principles of natural justice.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that seizure of imported ‘Roasted Areca Nuts’ on the basis of contradictory CRCL reports is not justifiable since report failed to account for low moisture levels. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and detained goods are directed to be released.
The Tribunal held that the extended limitation period cannot be invoked without proving intent to evade tax. Since no fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement was established, the demand was time-barred. The key takeaway is that limitation cannot be stretched merely due to audit findings.
The tribunal held that exemption under Notification No. 42/2012 cannot be denied when substantive conditions are met. Minor procedural lapses were found insufficient to reject the claim.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed where the appellant merely acted as a broker without handling goods. Absence of possession or direct involvement made Rule 26 inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that tobacco pouches under 10 grams are exempt from MRP-based valuation under Rule 34. As a result, Section 4A excise duty was not applicable.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the Air Travel Agents are not required to pay Service Tax on the Commission received by them from CDS/CRS companies. Also held that Air Travel Agents need not include the commission on fuel surcharge in the basic fare for payment of Service Tax.
The Tribunal examined whether waste and scrap from cable manufacturing are excisable. It held that such waste is not “manufactured goods” under law. The key takeaway is that non-manufactured by-products are not liable to duty.
