The issue was whether seat adjustment components qualify as seat parts or auto parts. CESTAT held they are integral seat parts under CTI 9401, overturning reclassification and duty demand.
The case involved a refund claim filed years after the taxpayer became aware of excess payment. The Tribunal held that delay under Section 11B barred the claim, leading to dismissal.
The Tribunal held that duty demand cannot be sustained without evidence showing how IGCR rules were violated. In absence of proof of improper clearance, the demand and penalty were set aside.
The case addressed whether a custodian could be held liable for duty when container contents differed from declared goods. The Tribunal held that without proof of tampered or broken seals, liability under section 45 cannot be imposed.
The issue was mis-declaration of quantity, value, and classification of imported goods. The Tribunal upheld reassessment and duty demand as the importer admitted discrepancies.
The authority held that penalty under Section 114AA cannot be imposed without proof of knowledge or intent. It ruled that absence of evidence linking the courier to Pakistan-origin goods warranted deletion of penalty.
The Tribunal held that excess service tax paid inadvertently does not qualify as tax under law. As a result, limitation under Section 11B was held inapplicable and refund was allowed with interest.
The Tribunal held that total business turnover, including non-taxable income, must be considered for exemption eligibility. Since the threshold was exceeded, refund was rightly rejected.
The Tribunal examined whether government grant-in-aid constituted taxable consideration. It held that reimbursement of capital expenditure without service linkage is not liable to service tax.
The issue was whether Revenue appeals with low penalty amounts are maintainable. The Tribunal held that appeals below ₹50 lakh must be dismissed under CBIC litigation policy.
