CESTAT Delhi held that proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to inputs and input services used for generating exempted electricity is sufficient compliance with Rule 6(3)(i). The Tribunal therefore set aside the demand and penalty.
The Tribunal held that modular kitchen baskets, racks, and similar products retain their identity as household articles and cannot be classified as parts of furniture merely because they are fixed in cabinets or drawers. The customs demand based on classification under Chapter 94 was set aside.
The dispute concerned Rule 6 demands on electricity transferred outside the manufacturing unit. CESTAT held that proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit amounts to non-availment of credit, making the demand unsustainable. The appeals were allowed and the demands, interest, and penalties were set aside.
Delhi CESTAT held that an importer who accepted enhanced valuation and paid duty without protest could not later challenge the assessment in appeal. The Tribunal found the acceptance of US $2.30 per kg valuation to be unconditional.
CESTAT Delhi set aside the refund rejection order after finding that issues relating to double payment of service tax and CENVAT credit eligibility required proper examination. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with an opportunity to produce supporting evidence.
CESTAT Delhi held that incorrect classification or self-assessment of imported goods does not automatically constitute misdeclaration under the Customs Act. The Tribunal set aside penalties imposed on the Customs Broker.
The CESTAT Delhi held that multifunction protection devices remained classifiable as relays because their primary function continued to be protection and control of electrical systems. Additional monitoring and recording features were treated as ancillary and did not affect exemption eligibility.
CESTAT Delhi held that un-invoiced allocations made by a foreign parent company were not taxable as no services were rendered and no consideration was paid. The Tribunal ruled that mere cost allocation entries in internal systems cannot attract service tax.
The Tribunal held that invocation of the five-year limitation period requires proof of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, which was absent in the case.
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.
