The CESTAT Chennai held that reassessment of a Bill of Entry can be permitted under Section 149 where excess CVD was paid due to failure to claim an exemption notification. The Tribunal directed customs authorities to reconsider the refund claim after reassessment instead of rejecting it on procedural grounds.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit on outward transportation and insurance services cannot be denied where goods are sold on FOR destination basis and the buyer’s premises is the place of removal. The Tribunal relied on earlier Larger Bench and Supreme Court-based principles for determining admissibility of credit.
The Chennai CESTAT held that imported electric scooter components could not be classified as complete CKD vehicles under Rule 2(a) because battery packs were never imported with the consignments.
Tribunal upheld findings of fraud involving third-party shipping bills and false export obligation fulfilment but reduced the quantum of penalties. It observed that appellant’s liability could not exceed comparable penalties imposed on principal offenders.
CESTAT Chennai held that recipients of Goods Transport Operator services were liable to pay service tax for 1997-98 under retrospective amendments. However, interest demand was set aside because the assessee filed the prescribed return within the statutory time limit.
Tribunal ruled that reimbursable expenses such as freight, warehousing, and terminal handling charges were not liable to service tax. Decision followed Supreme Court judgment declaring Rule 5(1) beyond scope of Sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that an exporter cannot be taxed under reverse charge for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds where no service recipient relationship was established with the foreign bank.
CESTAT Chennai held that Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules applies only when goods are consumed by the assessee or on its behalf. Since the plastic caps were used by the principal manufacturer and not captively consumed by the job worker, the duty demand was set aside.
Chennai CESTAT ruled that services provided directly to travellers for obtaining visas do not fall under taxable Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal relied on CBEC circulars and earlier judicial precedents.
CESTAT Chennai ruled that the BOOT water transmission agreement was a single indivisible works contract and not a trading activity. The Tribunal held that transfer of property in goods during execution did not convert the contract into sale of goods.
