CESTAT Chennai held that lower authorities failed to comprehensively verify courier invoices, consignment notes and tax payment records before confirming service tax demand. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Tribunal held that job work activities resulting in intermediate products do not attract reversal under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules when the final dutiable products are cleared on payment of excise duty. The appeal against the service tax demand was accordingly allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that the extended limitation period could not be applied where the dispute involved interpretation of exemption and export provisions. Since all transactions were disclosed in books and returns, the demand was held time-barred.
CESTAT Chennai remanded an excise valuation dispute after finding that the CAS-4 certificates required factual verification. The Tribunal also held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked in the absence of clear allegations of suppression.
CESTAT Chennai held that Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution was correctly classifiable under CTH 9018 as the issue had already been decided in the importer’s favour and upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that courses imparting practical skills qualify as vocational training even without guaranteed employment, allowing exemption under the notification.
CESTAT Chennai held that payment of Special Additional Duty is mandatory before claiming refund under Notification No. 102/2007. The Tribunal dismissed the importer’s challenge against SAD demand on imported silk fabrics.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 112(a) cannot be imposed without clear evidence of involvement or abetment. Key takeaway: mere allegations are insufficient.
The tribunal remanded the case after finding insufficient evidence to prove that refund and Cenvat credit were not claimed on the same services. Refund eligibility will depend on verification of non-availment of dual benefits.
The Tribunal ruled that absence of a Nodal Ministry certificate cannot deny exemption when goods were used in the intended project. The decision emphasizes substance over procedural compliance.
