Demand of service tax on remuneration paid to the Chairman and Directors was unsustainable as remuneration paid to the Directors constituted salary under an employer–employee relationship and was therefore not eligible to service tax.
The Tribunal held that an AI-based smart robot could not be classified as an electronic toy when it satisfied the requirements of an automatic data processing unit. Re-classification by customs authorities was set aside for lack of technical justification.
The issue was whether a company officer could be penalised for abetment of duty evasion. The Tribunal held that in the absence of evidence showing knowledge or intentional aid, penalty under Section 112(a) could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that Countervailing Duty applies only to castings, even if they form part of sub-assemblies or components, and remitted the case for valuation of castings.
The Tribunal ruled that amounts paid during investigation cannot be retained once the demand is set aside. Only lawful assessments can justify retention, and illegal collections must be refunded with interest.
CESTAT Chennai held that notifications and circulars issued under the Customs Act, 1962 cannot take away the benefit which is otherwise available under the Foreign Trade Policy [FTP] and Handbook of Procedure [HBP].
The Tribunal held that failure to return a seized laptop and documents used for defence vitiated the adjudication and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalties cannot be imposed when there is no evidence that the CHA manager knowingly aided mis-declaration or ineligible drawback claims.
The issue was whether higher remittances made later could alter the transaction value declared at import. The Tribunal held that customs duty must be determined at the time of import, rendering the differential demand unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that customs authorities cannot deny preferential duty merely because goods are packed in plain bags when a valid Certificate of Origin exists.
