CESTAT Chennai held that a subcontractor arranging transportation on behalf of a principal contractor was not the person liable to pay freight under GTA provisions. The demand was set aside as the principal contractor had already discharged service tax, making the levy unsustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that concessional CVD on imported cement cannot be denied merely because 50 kg bags carried printed RSP. The Tribunal ruled that the department must establish actual retail sale or misuse of the exemption.
The Tribunal held that when the importer itself was exonerated on the ground that the classification dispute was interpretational, Customs Brokers acting on the importer’s instructions could not be penalized for abetment. The penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that denial of effective cross-examination in proceedings founded on statements and investigation reports caused serious prejudice to the Customs Broker. Since the revocation proceedings lacked procedural fairness, the impugned order was set aside.
CESTAT Chennai: Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed for Non-Compliance of Pre-Deposit When Mandatory Deposit Was Already Made; Matter Remanded on Merits
CESTAT Chennai held that refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied merely due to missing original documents or procedural deficiencies when the importer establishes payment of SAD, VAT/CST, and non-passing of credit. The Tribunal directed grant of refund with interest.
CESTAT ruled that labour deployment and use of machinery under the lease arrangement were inseparable from plantation operations. In the absence of independent consideration, separate tax demands were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalties for abetment could not survive when the actual importer was neither identified nor proceeded against. The absence of a principal offender undermined the charge under Section 112(a).
The Tribunal held that while failures in supervision and due diligence were established, there was no conclusive proof of conscious involvement in fraudulent drawback exports. It upheld forfeiture of security deposit without revoking the licence.
The Tribunal held that the department could not reject a genuine Load Port Chartered Engineer’s Certificate in favour of a local report lacking supporting details. The declared transaction value was restored for customs assessment.
