CESTAT Kolkata held that works contract services connected with transmission or distribution of electricity fall under the negative list and are not liable to service tax.
The Tribunal quashed excise duty demands after holding that inter-unit clearances were revenue neutral since any duty paid was fully creditable to sister units.
CESTAT held that withholding goods due to a 100-unit model-wise limit was unsustainable where no centralized monitoring existed, and directed provisional release against bond and bank guarantee.
The Tribunal set aside a ₹50 lakh customs penalty, holding that a co-accused’s statement, without independent corroboration, cannot justify penal action under the Customs Act.
CESTAT held that limitation under Rule 15 starts from communication of re-valuation, making the supplementary drawback claim filed within three months valid.
The Tribunal held that seizure based only on presumption and driver statements was invalid. Authorities failed to prove attempted export through non-specified routes.
The tribunal held that city seizure of gold without foreign markings or import evidence cannot be treated as smuggling. In the absence of proof of foreign origin, confiscation and penalties were set aside.
The issue was whether a government-approved valuer could be penalised when Customs did not rely on his valuation. The Tribunal held that penalties are unsustainable without proof of reliance, intent, or collusion.
CESTAT Kolkata held that knitted readymade garments are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 6102 and, accordingly, the drawback rate would be 10% of FOB value. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant is disposed of.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs cannot re-assess import value solely on NIDB data. Transaction value must first be rejected on cogent evidence before any enhancement.
