The Tribunal classified AKD Wax under Heading 34049090 based on test reports and HSN notes. However, it held that prolonged departmental acceptance of an earlier classification defeated allegations of suppression.
The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority failed to properly analyse BIS guidance documents and the applicable Quality Control framework. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration through a reasoned order.
The Chennai Bench of CESTAT held that preferential duty benefits under the Indo–Thailand FTA could not be denied by unilaterally rejecting a Certificate of Origin. The Tribunal ruled that authorities must follow the verification procedure prescribed under the Interim Rules of Origin.
CESTAT Chennai held that SAD refund cannot be denied when original files were misplaced by the department and substantive conditions stood satisfied. Procedural defects in reconstructed invoices were held insufficient to defeat refund entitlement.
The Tribunal held that once an identical dispute involving the same assessee had been settled by a coordinate Bench, there was no basis to uphold the subsequent demand. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
CESTAT Chennai held that reimbursable expenses recovered on an actual basis could not be included in taxable value for periods prior to 14 May 2015. The ruling relied on the Supreme Court’s decision on the scope of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Chennai held that credits relating to renovation, sales promotion, testing services, vehicle-related expenses, and similar services could not be denied when they had a real nexus with taxable output services. The ruling clarifies that functional connection with business activities remains relevant even after amendments to the definition of input services.
CESTAT Chennai held that unsigned invoices, unauthenticated e-mails, and uncorroborated statements were insufficient to reject transaction value. The Tribunal quashed the demand, confiscation, and penalties after finding no proof of additional consideration.
CESTAT examined whether Bluetooth headsets should be treated as communication devices or ordinary headphones. It held that devices capable of transmitting and receiving voice and data in wireless networks fall under CTI 85176290.
CESTAT Chennai held that villas constructed on separate plots under individual agreements and approvals do not constitute a residential complex. Common amenities and gated community features alone were held insufficient to attract service tax.
