CESTAT Chennai held that construction of Traffic and Transit Management Centers is covered within the ambit of transport terminal, and hence falls within the exclusion category of definition of taxable services of Works Contract Services, and hence the same is not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that order holding appeals to be time-barred is set aside since period spent honestly and diligently by a litigant prosecuting a proceeding before a wrong forum is to be excluded while computing limitation.
The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority had considered the alleged violations and given reasons for lifting the suspension. With a fresh suspension issued during the appeal, the Tribunal held the matter to be infructuous and dismissed it.
The Chennai Tribunal upheld penalties against custodians, steamer agents, and employees for removing seized goods without permission, confirming accountability under the Customs Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that royalty and licence fees paid by Xiaomi India under exclusive agreement is includible in the transaction value as per section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Accordingly, differential duty confirmed.
CESTAT Chennai held that mere technical defects in supplier invoices are not sufficient to disallow ISD distributed credit. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential benefits.
CESTAT Chennai held that imported LED Monitors Tiles are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 84285200 and hence eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 01/03/2005. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that a notice under Section 28(6) of the Customs Act is mandatory before confirming short payment of duty or penalty, setting aside the order against L&T.
Penalties imposed on appellant and its Managing Director for allegedly availing excess duty drawback by understating freight charges in export shipping bills was set aside as appellant had not made any mis-declaration in the shipping bills filed by them, they had not rendered the export goods liable for confiscation.
CESTAT Chennai held that Enriched Omega 3 Fatty Acid (Fish Oil – Ethyl Ester) and Enriched Omega 3 Fatty Acid-Powder (Fish Oil – Ethyl Ester-Powder) are classifiable under CETH 1516 1000 and not under CETH 3824 9090 as contested by department.
