CESTAT Delhi held that earlier GST cancellation history became irrelevant once the exporter possessed valid GST registration on the transaction date. The Tribunal set aside revocation of the Customs Broker License.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere misclassification of imported goods does not attract confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. Since the goods were not liable for confiscation, penalty on the Customs House Agent under Section 112(a)(ii) was set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that alleged receipt of one raw material, namely Scented Tobacco, was insufficient to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance of Gutka. The Tribunal set aside excise duty demand due to lack of corroborative evidence regarding other raw materials and production activity.
CESTAT Delhi remanded the matter after finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the appellant’s affidavit and explanation regarding delayed receipt of the order. The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances required fresh examination.
The CESTAT Delhi held that transfer of land development rights amounts to transfer of immovable property and not a taxable service. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand, holding that such transactions fall outside Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act.
The Tribunal held that conversion of digital photographs into printed photo products created a commercially distinct commodity, qualifying as manufacture rather than taxable photography service.
Bluetooth Wireless Earphones because of its Bluetooth/Wireless connectivity did not transform an earphone into a “data transmission machine” for classification purpose.
The entire demand of excise duty, interest, and penalties for alleging that assessee was merely a proxy entity created by Noble Industries to fraudulently extend the exemption period beyond its permissible tenure was set aside as exemption notification and CBEC Circulars expressly permitted manufacture of new products, relocation of eligible units within notified areas, and transfer of ownership without affecting exemption eligibility.
CESTAT Delhi ruled that compensation and liquidated damages recovered for contractual breaches do not amount to consideration for tolerating an act under Section 66E(e). The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand on penalties and liquidated damages.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be imposed without a finding that goods were liable to confiscation. The Tribunal set aside the penalties as the impugned order contained no such determination.
