CESTAT Chennai held that strict transaction-wise correlation between factory clearances and retail sales was impractical in the jewellery business. The Tribunal allowed discount abatement based on consolidated sales data and Chartered Accountant certificates.
Tribunal observed that where goods are sold on FOR destination basis, the buyer’s premises may constitute the place of removal. If established on facts, CENVAT credit on outward transportation services would be admissible.
CESTAT Chennai held that mere trading in air tickets did not amount to taxable “Tour Operator” service. The Tribunal ruled that retaining discounts on ticket sales was outside the scope of service tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that imported cold heading quality alloy steel products were classifiable as wire under CTH 7229 after undergoing cold drawing processes. The Tribunal ruled that denial of exemption and differential duty demand could not survive once the classification was found correct.
CESTAT Chennai held that services provided to SEZ units for authorised operations remain exempt from service tax even if part of the services are rendered outside SEZ premises. The Tribunal relied on Sections 26 and 51 of the SEZ Act to allow the appeal.
CESTAT Chennai held that service tax cannot be levied twice on the same commercial coaching and training services by taxing both the principal entity and its business partner. The Tribunal found that service tax had already been discharged by the principal service provider.
The CESTAT Chennai held that reassessment of a Bill of Entry can be permitted under Section 149 where excess CVD was paid due to failure to claim an exemption notification. The Tribunal directed customs authorities to reconsider the refund claim after reassessment instead of rejecting it on procedural grounds.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit on outward transportation and insurance services cannot be denied where goods are sold on FOR destination basis and the buyer’s premises is the place of removal. The Tribunal relied on earlier Larger Bench and Supreme Court-based principles for determining admissibility of credit.
The Chennai CESTAT held that imported electric scooter components could not be classified as complete CKD vehicles under Rule 2(a) because battery packs were never imported with the consignments.
Tribunal upheld findings of fraud involving third-party shipping bills and false export obligation fulfilment but reduced the quantum of penalties. It observed that appellant’s liability could not exceed comparable penalties imposed on principal offenders.
