CESTAT Chennai held that exports made under Notification No. 30/2004-CE and the DEPB scheme cannot be included in exempted turnover for Rule 6(3A) credit reversal. The Tribunal consequently set aside the demand for alleged short reversal of CENVAT credit.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied where the assessee establishes a real and sufficient nexus between the disputed input services and its output services. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove otherwise and set aside the credit denial.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued more than three years after the Department became aware of the facts was time-barred. The extended period of limitation was found to be unjustified.
Appellants activity of providing trailers along with drivers, crew, fuel, insurance and retaining effective control and possession thereof was appropriately classifiable under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods Service” and not under Goods Transport Agency Service.
CESTAT held that where the value of goods sent for job work had already been considered for credit reversal purposes, including it again would amount to impermissible double counting.
CESTAT Chennai found that the Department’s case was based on an allegation that manpower services were used exclusively for insurance and mutual fund activities. The Tribunal held that the services were actually used across multiple business verticals, making the denial of CENVAT credit unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to meet export obligations under the EPCG Scheme does not automatically justify confiscation where there is no diversion or misuse of capital goods.
The Tribunal held that a customs refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the Chartered Accountant certificate was not in the suggested format. It ruled that procedural format deficiencies alone do not justify denial of refund.
CESTAT held that for quarterly Rule 5 refund claims, the one-year limitation period must be calculated from the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. The Tribunal ruled that export of services is completed only upon receipt of foreign exchange.
CESTAT held that once service tax and interest were paid before issuance of the SCN and the payment was intimated to the department, penalty proceedings could not be sustained. The Section 78 penalty was therefore set aside.
