CESTAT Delhi ruled that curved molybdenum mirrors and shields used in automobile lights cannot be classified as flat sheets or foils. The Tribunal held that shaping and curving transformed them into “articles of molybdenum” attracting 10% customs duty.
CESTAT Delhi held that providing buses with drivers to RSRTC did not amount to Rent-a-Cab Service since operational control remained with the owner. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand and penalties.
CESTAT Delhi held that amounts received by a recovery agent from a lender were taxable as service consideration since no documentary evidence of a joint venture existed. The Tribunal upheld service tax demand, interest, and penalty.
The CESTAT Delhi held that polyester knitted fabric containing a small percentage of spandex could not be treated as mis-declared goods. The Tribunal ruled that such minor composition variation did not justify confiscation under the Customs Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that imported ABS motors and sensors were capable of being used in motor vehicles and therefore excluded from concessional customs duty benefits. The Tribunal ruled that the exemption notification must be interpreted strictly.
CESTAT Delhi held that overburden removal, excavation, and lignite loading formed part of integrated mining operations taxable only after introduction of “Mining Services” from 01.06.2007. The Tribunal ruled that incidental activities could not be separately taxed under site formation services.
The Tribunal held that delayed submission of required certificates constituted a procedural lapse without intent to evade duty. It reduced penalties and redemption fine. The ruling emphasizes leniency in technical non-compliance cases.
CESTAT held that CENVAT credit on employee travel, guest house caretaker services, and group health insurance was admissible as the services were used in relation to business operations.
The Tribunal held that rejection of declared value without proof of inaccuracy was unjustified. Key takeaway: transaction value cannot be rejected without reasonable doubt and supporting evidence.
CESTAT Delhi held that statements recorded during investigation cannot be relied upon as evidence unless the mandatory procedure under Section 9D—examination before adjudicating authority and admissibility determination—is followed.
