CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-S.T. as the taxable value of services remained below Rs.10 lakh. The Tribunal ruled that no service tax liability arose in such circumstances.
CESTAT Mumbai held that optional “type test charges” collected separately from customers cannot be included in the assessable value of transformers. The Tribunal ruled that post-manufacturing testing conducted at the buyer’s request does not attract Central Excise duty.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside anti-dumping duty demands after finding that WhatsApp chats, emails, and statements relied upon by Revenue were not authenticated under Section 138C of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that primary documentary evidence supporting Uzbekistan origin had not been disproved.
The Tribunal held that a commercial trade discount given to a bulk buyer could not be added to assessable value without evidence of additional consideration. It ruled that the department failed to prove any free benefit flowing from the buyer to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that imports across multiple consignments without one-to-one correlation cannot be treated as complete drones. It set aside the denial of provisional release.
The Tribunal ruled that when customs authorities had examined and accepted the classification earlier, suppression of facts cannot be alleged. The extended period of limitation was therefore held to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that exemption cannot be denied based on a re-export condition imposed through a DGH certificate when such a requirement is absent in the notification.
The order highlights that both improper issuance of notices and incorrect application of law led to invalid recovery proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the demand and granted relief to the appellants.
CESTAT Mumbai held that activity trackers/fitness band are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8517 6290 as communicable device and not under Customs Tariff Item 9029 1090 as pedometer. Accordingly, classification done by department accepted.
The issue involved taxability of management and incentive fees earned by an asset reconstruction company. The tribunal set aside the demand due to incorrect classification and invalid invocation of extended limitation.
