ELFA-based VIDAS diagnostic kits were eligible for the customs exemption available to ELISA kits under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. It further held that the dispute was interpretational, the extended limitation period was wrongly invoked, and the consequential demand of duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties was liable to be set aside.
CESTAT held that revenue-sharing arrangements with restaurant operators did not constitute Business Support Service and set aside the service tax demand.
CESTAT held voyage charter agreements were contracts for transportation of goods, not supply of tangible goods. The service tax demand was set aside.
CESTAT held limitation cannot be decided without establishing the actual date of communication. Matter remanded for fresh consideration.
CESTAT ruled that the appeal abated as no legal representative applied for continuance after the appellant’s death under Rule 22.
CESTAT held the HS code in the Certificate of Origin cannot override Customs Tariff classification. Exemption and all consequential relief were allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund cannot be denied merely because invoices do not mention batch numbers if the required correlation is established through contemporaneous records. The matter was remanded for limited verification.
CESTAT held that the appellant produced sufficient contractual and documentary evidence to establish that the incidence of OID Cess had not been passed on to the buyer. It therefore rejected the Department’s plea of unjust enrichment.
After ruling that the extended limitation period was invalidly invoked, CESTAT held that it was unnecessary to consider the substantive service tax and CENVAT credit issues. The appeals were allowed on limitation alone.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of police quarters for the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation is excluded from service tax. It set aside the tax demands after following earlier Tribunal decisions on the same issue.
