The Tribunal held that absence of a show cause notice under Section 28(1) vitiated the demand. Failure to produce the notice even after ten years proved fatal to the Revenues case.
The Tribunal held that once the NCLT accepts a Resolution Plan and orders liquidation, the Revenue’s pending service tax appeal cannot survive and stands abated.
The Tribunal held that demand under Section 28 cannot be raised before finalisation of provisional assessment. As the goods were cleared provisionally, the duty demand, penalties, and confiscation were quashed.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit on transport coordination services relating to employee movement is inadmissible for the period from 01.04.2011 onwards. Further, CENVAT on escort/security services may qualify as input services if the place of removal extends beyond the factory gate.
The Tribunal held that Notification 1/2016-ST retrospectively expands “specified services,” making head-office services used for export eligible for refund. Rejections based on pre-amendment interpretation were set aside with limited remand for verification.
CESTAT Chennai set aside a ₹92 lakh customs demand on imported natural rubber latex, holding the show cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal ruled that without proof of wilful misstatement, extended limitation cannot apply.
The Tribunal held that preloaded software formed part of imported hardware and must be included in assessable value. However, extended limitation and penalties were quashed due to absence of suppression.
The Tribunal held that a refund claim filed within time cannot be rejected for procedural deficiencies cured later, and directed sanction of refund after considering revised documents.
CESTAT Chennai held that Actuator Assy. Clutch and Tube Connector Assy. Clutch being accessory of clutch and gear shifting mechanism are rightly classifiable under the residual entry of 8708 9900 and not under 8708 9300. Accordingly, appeal of department rejected.
The case examined whether assignment of programme copyright was a service or a sale. The Tribunal held that permanent transfer of copyright is a sale liable to VAT, not service tax.
