The Tribunal held that enhancement of import value without properly rejecting transaction value and following sequential valuation methods is legally unsustainable.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside orders denying CENVAT Credit on rent-a-cab and insurance services, directing the original authority to provide detailed reasons and grant personal hearing.
CESTAT held that valuation under Rule 10A fails where the department cannot prove that goods were manufactured as job work, reaffirming that free supply of some inputs alone is insufficient.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that the adjudicating authority failed to examine exemption eligibility and supporting documents, directing fresh consideration of service tax liability.
CESTAT Mumbai held that services rendered by Marriott Hotels India Private Limited to their group company [Marriott Hong Kong] qualifies as export of services and accordingly no service tax is leviable. Thus, order quashed and appeal allowed.
The Tribunal held that Bills of Entry cannot be reassessed after goods are cleared merely to claim a refund based on a later Supreme Court decision in another case.
Tribunal holds that providing online ticket booking services does not constitute trading; service provider can retain convenience fees and claim CENVAT credit on taxable services.
CESTAT Mumbai rules that sales tax discharged at net present value under a state incentive scheme cannot be included in transaction value for central excise duty.
CESTAT ruled that absolute confiscation of prohibited goods is not valid if the goods have been re-exported before the appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that confiscation requires the goods to be physically available.
CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation and differential duty based on Air Cargo Complex imports and post parcel valuation were without legal authority. The order imposing penalties and confiscation was set aside.
