CESTAT Mumbai ruled that mandarin juice concentrate falls under “juice of any other single citrus fruit” and not orange juice because the Customs Tariff separately classifies oranges and mandarins. The Tribunal upheld duty demand for the normal period but quashed penalties and extended limitation.
The CESTAT Mumbai held that placement fees collected from students by educational institutions are not taxable under manpower recruitment service. The Tribunal ruled that no consideration flowed from employers, which is essential under the charging provision.
CESTAT Mumbai held that recovery proceedings and penalty were unsustainable where inadmissible CENVAT credit was reversed before issuance of notice and remained unutilised due to sufficient credit balance.
Tribunal held that Section 159A of the Customs Act could not revive Rules 16 and 16A of repealed 1995 Drawback Rules where 2017 Rules showed a different legislative intention. Recovery proceedings initiated in 2022 were therefore held unsustainable.
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.
