Service Tax Not Payable On Commission Received From Foreign Universities For Promoting & Publicizing Business In India: CESTATCase Title: TC Global India Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, DGCEI, New DelhiCase Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51355 of 2017The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not payable...
Case Title: TC Global India Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, DGCEI, New Delhi
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51355 of 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not payable on commission received from foreign universities for promoting and publicizing business in India.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that “the assessee is held not liable to pay service tax with reference to foreign Consultancy Income i.e. the income received from foreign universities for promoting and publicizing their business in India.”
Case title: M/s. Samudera Shipping Line (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case no.: Customs Appeal No. 75641 of 2021
Stating that goods wrongly loaded by the steamer agent could not have been exported without clearance by the Customs officials themselves, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Noting that the goods had been successfully exported and remittance against it had been received, the bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan said the same could not have been possible without clearance by the Customs Department. Thus, the penalty imposed on Appellant would be bad in law.
Excise Duty Not Payable On 'Bagasse' Which Emerges As A Waste Product During Sugar Crushing: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal Nos. 40479 to 40482 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that excise duty is not payable on the Bagasse emerged as waste product during sugar crushing.
The Bench of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) has observed that Bagasse emerged only as a waste product during crushing of sugarcane during the manufacturing process and though marketable, duty could not be imposed on it as there was no manufacturing activity involved.
Case Title: Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.40501 of 2024
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that investigation report is not an appealable order and there is no statutory right for a hearing at the stage of preparation of investigation report.
The Bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that “the assessee has also not demonstrated any real prejudice caused to them by the investigation report. Merely being disappointed or dissatisfied is not enough”.
Seized Gold Cannot Be Confiscated Just For Having An Invalid Letter Of Approval: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Encee International NSEZ v. Commissioner of Customs, Noida
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.70692 of 2019
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that seized gold cannot be confiscated just for having an invalid letter of approval.
There was a difference in the opinion between the P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) on the issues involved in the case. Therefore, the matter was place before third member ie. S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) for determination of the same.
Case Title: M/s. Wellworth Project Developers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commissioner of CGST
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50259 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation merely because the returns were self-assessed.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “Mere suppression of facts is not enough to invoke the extended period of limitation contemplated under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act. The suppression has to be with an intent to evade payment of service tax and for this purpose the show cause notice must specifically allege why the asseessee has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax.”
Case Title: Deepak Pandey v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Appeal No. 52346 of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the prescribed time limit for filing a refund application cannot be disregarded merely because the tax was collected without legal authority.
The Bench of Justices Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that “the appellant cannot be permitted to claim a refund of service tax under sub-section (1) of section 102 and at the same time contend that the condition stipulated in sub-section (3) of section 102 of the Finance Act should be ignored.”
Case Title: Executive Engineer (Workshop) M.P. Power Appellant Transmission Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Customs & CGST
Case Number: Excise Appeal No.50329 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted a refund along with interest, despite the absence of a statutory provision for interest under central excise laws at the relevant time.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the amount collected by way of Central excise duty was illegal as the activity itself did not involve any manufacture and the same cannot be allowed to be retained by the Government.”
Case Title: M/s Secure Meters Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51041 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that imported communication modules function independently as parts of communication hubs, classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) have observed that “since the communication modules were imported, they should be classified as such. The correct classification of the communication modules is CTI 8517 70 90.”
Case Title: Rallis India Limited v. C.C.E-Bharuch
Case Number: Service Appeal No 11894 of 2016 - SM
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the department cannot consider a refund claim unless it is specified under which notification and provision the same has been sought.
The Bench of Somesh Arora (Judicial) has observed that, “The lapse of non-filing of refund under proper notification separately for June 2013 cannot be termed as mere procedural lapse. The department cannot be expected to consider refund claim if it is not indicated to them as to under which notification and provisions same has been sought.”
Case Title: M/s Indus Towers Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 60744 of 2023
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that adjustment of refund against a confirmed demand during the pendency of an appeal amounts to coercive recovery.
The amount adjusted from the total refund sanctioned to the assessee is refundable to the assessee at the rate of 12% per annum computed from the date of deposit till the date of its refund, stated the bench.
Two Or More Bills Of Entry Or Shipping Bills Cannot Be Taken Together And Assessed: CESTAT
Case Title: M/S Disha Realcon Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner of Customs Adjudication
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 54710 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that two or more bills of entry or shipping bills cannot be taken together and assessed.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “Two or more Bills of Entry or Shipping Bills cannot be taken together and assessed. The only exception made in the law are the Project Imports under Project Import Regulations, 1986.”
Transaction Value Is Not The Only Basis For Assessment Of Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Mittal Appliances Limited V. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51888 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the transaction value is not the only basis for assessment of the duty.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “transaction value is not the only basis for assessment of the duty. The Valuation Rules and Section 14 of the Act provide for rejection of transaction value. When rejecting the transaction value, the customs officer does not modify the transaction value but only rejects it as the assessable value for determination of the duty.”
Case Title: M/s. Aglowmed Ltd. V. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax, Dehradun
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 51902 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere wrong availment of exemption notification does not mean that availment was done to evade payment of central excise duty.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “Mere wrong availment of an Exemption Notification would not lead to a conclusion that it was with an intent to evade payment of central excise duty unless the department is able to not only allege but substantiate that the said suppression was deliberate with an intent to evade payment of central excise duty.”
Case Title: M/s Prestige Polymers Pvt. Ltd. V. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51470 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that if goods imported into an SEZ are not used for the authorised operations but are sold in Domestic Tariff Area, duty has to be paid.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “if goods imported into an SEZ are not used for the authorised operations but are sold in Domestic Tariff Area, duty has to be paid. If duty is not paid or short paid and as a result a demand has to be raised, it must be done as per the Customs Act by the jurisdictional Customs Officers.”
Case Title: Svam Toyal Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.50780 Of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the Customs authorities cannot deny the benefit of Customs duty exemption under the notifications governing the Advance Licensing Scheme.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the goods imported by the assessee under AAs are permitted for duty free import under Advance Authorization Scheme.
Obligation Under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Cannot Be Transferred To Recipient Of Credit: CESTAT
Case Title: Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd V. The Commissioner of CGST & Customs
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 85225 of 2020
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the obligation under rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be transferred to the recipient of credit under rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The Bench of C J Mathew (Technical) has observed that, “the mechanism provided in rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, governing the distribution of such credit, deems the credit so distributed to be eligible credit for the purpose of utilization. A harmonious reading of rule 3 and 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the conditions prescribed in rule 7 alone would determine the extent of validity of the credit so distributed within the scheme of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.”
Assessee Not Eligible To Avail CENVAT Credit On Invoices Not In Their Name: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Leel Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50277 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the assessee is not eligible to avail the CENVAT Credit on the basis of the invoices which were not in their name.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that “it is necessary that the document contains all particulars as mentioned therein to avail the credit. The name of the consignee or service receiver on the invoice is the basic requirement for availing the CENVAT Credit.”
Case Title: M/s. Assam Gas Company Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 75603 of 2015
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the reimbursements received by the assessee cannot be considered as 'consideration' towards any taxable service.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (President) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical) has observed that, “the service rendered by the appellant is not for any other company but to themselves. Thus, there is no service provider and service receiver relationship exists in the transaction.”
Service Tax Liability Can't Be Levied On Freight And Cartage Expenses Under GTA Services: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax - Delhi III V. M/s. Globe Civil Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 54328 of 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax liability cannot be levied on freight and cartage expenses under GTA (Good Transport Agency) services.
“The said amount/expenses/charges were not paid by the assessee directly to the transporter for transportation of any goods. Thus, the said activity cannot be covered under GTA Services, hence, no service tax liability can be levied on the aforesaid amount/expenses/charges under GTA services” stated the bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical).
Legal & Consultancy Services Under RCM Is Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: Saisun Outsourcing Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax, Jabalpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 54991 Of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that legal & consultancy services under RCM is liable to service tax.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has stated that “in absence of any reply or any supporting documents, Legal fees expense incurred by the assessee are expenses towards Legal services. Accordingly, Service Tax on Legal Fee expense incurred by the assessee is upheld.”
Case Title: M/s Akanksha Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51269 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that customs broker not responsible if client moves to new premises once verification of address is complete.
“The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete, if the client moves to a new premises and does not inform the authorities or does not get his documents amended, such act or omission of the client cannot be held against the Customs Broker” stated the Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member).
FOB Value Of Goods Can't Be Modified By Anyone Including Any Customs Officer: CESTAT
Case Title: JBN Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50127 OF 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no stranger to the contract, including any Customs officer has any right to interfere with the Free on Board (FOB) value of the goods.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has stated that “there is a privity of contract between the buyer and the seller and they alone can decide the terms of contract and in case of non-compliance by one, the other can seek to enforce it. The consideration or the transaction value cannot be modified by any stranger to the contract including any officer.”
Case Title: M/s Spain Electronics v. Commissioner (Appeals-I)
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50585 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that installation and commissioning of goods after sale is not a “works contracts”, hence service tax is not leviable.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “merely because the goods were installed and commissioned after sale, the contract would not become a works contract services.”
Service Tax Is Leviable On Renting Of Immovable Property: CESTAT
Case Title: Satnam Kaur v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 53769 OF 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is leviable on renting of immovable property.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has opined that unless the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property service is held to be ultra vires by any constitutional court, it will continue to be a valid levy.
Case Title: M/s Essjay Telecom and IT Services Private Limited
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50853 OF 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount deposited as service tax, if refundable, should not be treated as pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.
“Section 11B provides for refund of duty or service tax. If an amount is already paid as duty or service tax, it is reckoned while computing if any further amount needs to be paid to meet the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under section 35F. Merely because such adjustment is made, the amount paid as service tax or fine or penalty does not become pre-deposit under section 35F” stated the bench of P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member).
No Service Tax On Services By Organizer In Respect Of Business Exhibition Held Outside India: CESTAT
Case Title: Aksh Optifibre Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Alwar
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50810 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on services by organizer in respect of business exhibition held outside India. The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that
“…the Business Exhibition for which the appellant received services from the foreign agencies, were held outside the taxable territory. Resultantly, the Place of Provision of Services received by the appellant from the foreign service provider shall be outside the territory of India. Accordingly, appellant is not liable to pay service tax even under RCM.”
Activity Of “Chilling Of Milk” Is A Service, Leviable To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Jai Durge Ice Factory v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Udaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52965 of 2018 [DB]
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that activity of chilling of milk is leviable to service tax.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the activity of chilling of milk during the post negative period amounts to rendering 'services' as defined in section 65B (44) and is therefore, leviable to service tax.”
Case Title: M/s. Raj Kumar Jain v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise – Jodhpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 54671 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the advertising agency being a pure agent is not liable to pay service tax on amount payable to media companies on behalf of their clients.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “The assessee has conceded about their liability to pay service tax on the amount of commission received by them while rendering the advertising agency service to the print media. However, still has contested the same on the ground of limitation.”
Case Title: M/s The Indure Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51192 Of 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that if an assessee fails to discharge his tax liability under the bonafide belief that tax did not need to be paid, no penalty is leviable.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) has observed that, “even if payment is made through CENVAT for GTA services, which is impermissible, it cannot be stated that the assessee had misstated or suppressed any information or evaded tax in as much as the details of the payment were available in the return.”
Service Tax Leviable On RIICO And RASMB For Commercial And Industrial Construction Services: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Gokulnath Construction Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Central GST, Jaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53032 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that there is a service tax liability on RIICO and RASMB for commercial and industrial construction services.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) was addressing the issue of the tax liability of the service provider providing “Commercial and Industrial Construction Service” to the public authorities.
Amount Recovered Towards Penalty Is Not A Service, Service Tax Not Leviable: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. AVVNL V. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51973 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount recovered towards penalty is not a consideration for any activity and as a result there is no 'service'. Therefore, no service tax is leviable.
The Bench of Bintu Tamta (Technical) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “the amount recovered by the assessee towards penalty is not a consideration for any activity which has been undertaken by the assessee and as a result there is no 'service' in terms of Section 65B (44) of the Act.”
Service Tax Not Leviable On Excess Transportation Charges Recovered From Buyers: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51587 of 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not leviable on excess transportation charges recovered from the buyers.
The activity of arranging transportation of goods till the dealer's premises cannot be classified under “Business Auxiliary Service” and, therefore, no service tax is payable on transportation related expenses recovered in excess by the assessee from their buyers, stated the Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical).
Customs Broker Cannot Be Faulted For Trusting Government-Issued Certificates: CESTAT
Case Title: Ravi Dhanwariya v. The Commissioner of Customs-New Delhi -Airport And General
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 54889 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that when a government officer issues a certificate or registration with an address to an exporter, the Customs Broker cannot be faulted for trusting the certificates so issued.
The Tribunal opined that “If there are documents issued by the Government Officers which show that the client is functioning at the address, it would be reasonable for the Customs Broker to presume that the officer is not wrong and that the client is indeed, functioning at that address.”
Student Almanac And Teacher Planner Not Exigible To Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Sona Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Appeal
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 55542 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Student Almanac and teacher planner not exigible to excise duty.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the submission of the assessee that since Student Almanac is used only by students of a particular school, it becomes a product of printing industry cannot be accepted.
Case Title: M/S. P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, And CGST Commissionerate
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 52154 Of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that there is no exemption on the articles described as pendants as the jewellery is not distinguishable on the basis of purity of gold.
The Bench of Bintu Tamta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) has observed that, “The contention of the assessee that articles of jewellery do not cover pendant of 24 CARAT within its purview is misleading and unsustainable as nowhere in the Chapter Note or the Heading, the jewellery is distinguishable on the basis of purity of gold.
Case Title: Tech Mahindra Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Pune
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 86917 of 2016
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund claim for service tax cannot be claimed on transactions took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India.
The Bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical) has observed that, “The said claim for refund is in respect of service tax paid by the assessee in respect of transactions that took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India and, therefore, that service tax was not payable.”
Case Title: East West Fright Carriers Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86361 OF 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that failure to file declaration may be considered as a technical irregularity if customs authorities failed to notice it.
“There is no doubt that the declaration had to be made and, the deployment of 'abundant caution' in the instructions notwithstanding, it would appear that the said declaration was of not of insignificance in the procedure prescribed under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 and handling of drawback claims but it has not been shown that customs broker had not advised the client about the documentation and that non-compliance thereof was not to be taken thereof by the proper officer except upon reporting by the broker” stated the Bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and CJ Mathew (Technical Member).
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on 27th March 2025 vide Circular No. 248/05/2025-GST has given clarification on various issues related to availment of benefit of Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017.
Based on the recommendations of the GST Council made in its 53rd and 54th meetings, a new section 128A was inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 164 has been inserted in the CGST Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 1st November 2024 to provide for waiver of interest or penalty or both relating to demands raised under Section 73 for the period from 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2020.
Case Title: Noorul Ayin Versus Commissioner of Customs
Case No: Defect Appeal No. 42151/2024
The Chennai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently clarified that once the luggage/bag which accompanies an individual arriving from a domestic airport in India, during the aircrafts domestic run, is intercepted by the officers, there cannot be a presumption that it is covered under the Customs Act, 1962 and to which the Baggage Rules, 2016 can automatically apply.
The CESTAT therefore held that, “'baggage' under the Baggage Rules 2016, includes jewellery worn or concealed on the person of an individual arriving in India from abroad, and hence this Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal pertaining to 'any goods imported or exported as baggage' as per the exclusions carved out by the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962”. (Para 14)
No CENVAT Credit On Training Of Employees Of GAIL By Training Institutes: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Gail Training Institute Versus Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50632 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no CENVAT credit on training of employees of Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) by training institutes.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “The term “coaching and training” must be “coaching and training” of the employees of the assessee. Merely because the bills were paid by the assessee, the services provided by way of coaching and training of employees of GAIL do not become input services of the assessee.”
Customs Officer Is A Stranger To Contract Of Sale, Cannot Re-Determine FOB Value: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Kritika Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51722 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no stranger to the contract of sale, including the Customs officer, has any right to re-determine the FOB or transactional value of goods.
The Free on Board or (FOB )is one of the INCOTERMS – which are the terms used in international commerce. The INCOTERMS make the costs, risks and liabilities of the buyer and seller explicit. If the goods are exported on FOB basis, the seller is responsible until the goods are put on Board the vessel or aircraft. All costs and risks up to loading the goods on to the ship or aircraft are on the seller‟s account. The seller is free once the goods are put on board. The costs and risks associated with transportation to the destination, etc., are all on account of the buyer.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise- Delhi-IV
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51901 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on buying or selling of space in print media and receiving incentives on meeting targets.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the assessee cannot have an obligation to the media houses. All that is paid by the media houses is, if the assessee achieves particular target while carrying out its business for its clients, the media house gives some incentives.
Case Title: M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Appeal
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51699 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 'digital still image video cameras' imported by assessee is entitled to basic customs duty exemption.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that what was to be examined was whether the demand confirmed for the normal period of limitation contemplated under section 28(1) of the Customs Act for the reason that 'digital still image video cameras' imported by the assessee would not be entitled to basic customs duty exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012 was justified or not.
Case Title: M/s JLC Electromet Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Customs, Jodhpur, Headquarters Jaipur
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51722 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that same rate tax and interest applicable on IGST in the course of inter-state trade and supplies in the course of imports.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, the taxable event to levy IGST is the inter-state supply of goods and services (including supplies in the course of international trade). If there is no supply, there is no scope to levy IGST even if goods are imported.
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Versus M/s. ITC Ltd, Gurgaon
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 1086 OF 2011
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that supply of manpower to five hotels for a period of nearly three years would clearly attract service tax under the head of “manpower recruitment or supply agency service”.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “In relation to manpower supply to five units on cost recovery basis, the Commissioner noticed that ITC had deputed employees to other hotels to operate and maintain those hotels in line with ITC Welcome group standards and run those hotels in a smooth and efficient manner. Thus, supply of manpower to five hotels for a period of nearly three years would clearly attract service tax under the head of “manpower recruitment or supply agency service”.”
Case Title: M/s Bhardwaj Construction and Electricals Versus Commissioner of CGST and, Service Tax, Excise and Customs
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50967 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that suppression or wilful concealment not attributable when the departmental authorities have differed themselves on the taxability of the services.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “When the two departmental authorities have differed themselves on the taxability of the services under a specific category, no suppression or wilful concealment with intent to evade payment of duty can be attributed to the assessee.”
Case Title: Harvinder Kaur Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Jodhpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50731 Of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax would be chargeable on the commission received by a Distributor from Amway on the products purchased by his sales group.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) observed that “the assessee is an individual, who cannot be faulted if she thought that she was only a dealer; a difference between the purchase price and the sale price or MRP is available to her and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an intention to evade service tax. The said issue arose only because Amway called such amount as 'commission' whereas the assessee simply sold the goods to the person who asked a product at a particular MRP…”
Case Title: M/s. Career Point Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Excise and Customs, Udaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52382 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that subscription and redemption of liquid mutual fund units can't be termed as “trading of goods”.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the activity of investment in mutual funds does not involve the presence of a service rendered by a service provider towards a recipient of service for some consideration. The activity undertaken would not amount to “service” in terms of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title: M/s Oiles India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise CGST
Case Number: Excise Appeal No.50314 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that disputed amount paid under protest much after clearance of goods is not covered by unjust enrichment.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) has observed that “once the supplies have already been made, any amount paid thereafter, as tax or deposit, the burden of such amount cannot be passed on to the assessee and, therefore, the test of unjust enrichment is not applicable.”
Case Title: M/s Sannam S-4 Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of CGST
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.50666 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the consultancy services rendered by the assessee to the foreign university/foreign group entity do not fall under the category of “intermediary services” and the assessee are eligible for the benefit of “export of services”.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and (Technical Member) has observed that “it may also be appreciated that the final decision of admitting a student is that of the foreign university. The assessee on the other hand is acting in its independent capacity as a business promoter and does not act as an agent of the university. The fact that the assessee is rendering services on its own account, it cannot be treated as an “intermediary”. On the conclusion that assessee is not an “intermediary”, Rule 9 of POPS Rules will not be applicable and consequently Rule 3 would apply.”
Case Title: HIM Logistics Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs Export (ICD TKD), New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.53566 Of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that penalty can't be imposed under Section 114AA Customs Act on customs broker merely for failing to physically verify the importer's premises.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that “the allegations that the appellant did not physically verify the premises of the importer, are not sufficient to fasten the appellant with the penalty. It has not been established that the appellant handled this consignment with any malafide motive. It is essential to establish an intentional or deliberate act or omission and to the act of abetment for imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act.”
12% IGST Is Leviable On Imported 'Lemoneez' Drink: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Dabur India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75364 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 12% IGST is leviable on imported 'Lemoneez'.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether 'Lemoneez' is appropriately classifiable under residuary item 2106 90 19 as a soft drink concentrate [under miscellaneous edible preparations, not elsewhere specified], or under Tariff Item 2009 31 00 (juice of a single citrus fruit).
Case Title: M/s. Composite Impex v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50955 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that admissibility of printouts from seized electronic evidence requires certificate under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “that a printout generated from a secondary electronic evidence that has been seized, cannot be admitted in evidence unless the statutory conditions laid down in section 36B of the Central Excise Act are complied with.”
Case Title: Commissioner, Customs (Preventive)-Jaipur v. M/S Pelican Quartz Stone
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50196 OF 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no exporter has an obligation to either anticipate or to conform to views of DRI in classifying goods in shipping bills.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “no exporter has any obligation to anticipate any views of DRI, audit or preventive officers regarding the classification of the goods or to conform to them. The exporter fulfils his obligation once he files the Shipping Bills classifying goods as per his understanding.”
Case Title: Kalpakaaru Projects Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner, CGST-Delhi South
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50302 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that actual figures can be considered for determining service tax payable by assessee if books of accounts show higher figures than statutory returns.
The Bench of Justices Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “If the books of accounts show higher figures than the statutory returns the actual figures can be considered for determining the service tax payable by the appellant. However, before considering the figures in the statutory returns and other records, what needs to be ascertained is whether the figures therein represent the value of the taxable services provided or not.”
Case Title: M/s. Roy's Institute of Competitive Examination Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 75230 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not leviable on hostel fees received for non-residential courses in coaching institute.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has observed that “the stand-alone hostel charges collected for non-residential courses, have no connection with Commercial Training and Coaching services as defined under section 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act, in as much as, even if any student, who do not avail this service, would continue to avail the course offered by the assessee and therefore, the question of payment of service tax does not arise.”
Case Title: Evergreen Shipping Agency India Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 51117 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that knowledge and intention must be there to impose penalty under Section 114AA of Customs Act.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “Knowledge and intention is sine qua non for imposing penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act. The department has not been able to establish knowledge on part of the assessee or intention on the part of the assessee to help the exporter in obtaining the alleged undue export advantage. In such circumstances, penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act cannot be imposed upon the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s. Artifacts India v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi- II
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.55777 OF 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that bank charges paid to foreign banks are not liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has stated that “there is direct nexus of the buyer with the Foreign Bank, and it is held that when the provider of service i.e. 'the Foreign Bank' and recipient of service i.e. 'the Buyer' are both located outside India, there is no question of taxing such service in India as the said service has been provided outside the taxable territory and outside the purview of Section 66B the charging section for levy of service tax.”
Royalty Paid For Exclusive Trademark License Is Not Taxable As A Service: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Bajaj Resources Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Udaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53227 of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that royalty paid for exclusive trademark license is not taxable as service.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the assessee was restrained to use the said trademark during the said period in any territory of the world and as such the transaction was a transaction of 'Deemed Sale' inviting no service tax liability. Hence, the amount paid by the assessee for which refund has been claimed was the amount not towards the duty but was an amount wrongly deposited by the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s Hewlett Packard Sales Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import) Commissionerate
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50203 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that re-determination value of CDs imported by HP India invalid without rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 Customs Valuation Rules 2007.
The bench stated that unless the proper officer rejects the transaction value under Rule 12, the valuation has to be based on transaction value as per Rule 3 with some additions, if necessary, as per Rule 10.
Assessee Liable To Pay Redemption Fine For Seized Goods Missing From Their Custody: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive)-New Delhi V. M/S Akay Cones Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2008
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that assessee liable to pay redemption fine for seized goods missing from their custody.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether when the goods were seized handed over the assessee for safe custody and they went missing while in their custody, whether such goods can be confiscated or not.
Case Title: M/s Case New Holland Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1455 OF 2012
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that packing/re-packing of parts of vibrator compactor is not manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) Of Central Excise Act and hence no excise duty is leviable.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the two constructions equipments namely Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe and Vibratory Compactor are “Automobiles”, because only then the activity of packing/repacking of parts of the WTLB and VC would amount to manufacture under section 2 (f) (iii) of the Central Excise Act.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Excise and Customs, Bhopal v. M/s. Akansha Sales Promoters
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 50135 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that proceedings against assessee unsustainable once discharge certificate is issued under SVLDRS [Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019] Scheme.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) was addressing the issue that in case where the assessee opts for SVLDRS Scheme and obtained discharge certificate can the proceedings by way of appeal by the Revenue is sustainable or not.
Statement Recorded U/S 108 Of Customs Act Is Not Valid Evidence U/S 138B Of Customs Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Shanti Swaroop Sharma, Director v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50071 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act not valid evidence under section 138B of the Customs Act.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could be considered as evidence under section 138B of the Customs Act.
Service Tax Payable On Service Charges Collected From Client For Printing: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Chhattisgarh Samvad v. Principal Commissioner
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51826 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax payable on service charges collected from client for printing.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the assessee engaged someone else to do the job of printing after preparing content using its in-house expertise. The assessee was, by no stretch of imagination a job worker to a printer. The printer, in fact, was the assessee's sub-contractor. The assessee is liable to pay service tax on the service charges which it had collected from the client departments towards printing work but only within the normal period of limitation.
Case Title: Sistema Smart Technologies Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 60295 of 2023
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax not leviable on license fee/spectrum charges payable for period prior to 01.04.2016.
The Bench consists of S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has stated that “as per the principle of ejusdem generis, the phrase “any other document issued by the Government demanding such payment” should only include documents of similar nature to an invoice, bill or challan. If we apply this principle, then the phrase “any other document issued by the Government demanding such payment” cannot be an agreement as considered by the department in the case because the same is not issued in the nature of an invoice, bill or challan.”
Case Title: M/s Balajee Structural India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50124 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that profit earned in GTA service (Goods Transport Agency Service) through sub-contractor not taxable as business auxiliary service.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “revenue's attempt to charge service tax on the profit calling it business auxiliary service cannot be accepted because the service which the assessee provided to Jhakodia Minerals was GTA service. Part of the consideration received cannot be treated as a separate service because there is no evidence of any other service being provided”.
Case title: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50727 OF 2021
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has held that lithium-ion batteries used for the manufacture of mobile phones up to March 31, 2020 would attract 12% GST.
A Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) added that if lithium-ion batteries were not used in the manufacture of mobile phones, they would attract 28% GST up to July 26, 2018 and 18% GST thereafter until March 31, 2020.
HIV Test Kits Qualify As Life-Saving Diagnostic Kits; Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Cepheid India Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52186 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that HIV-VL test kits qualify as life-saving diagnostic kits and is eligible for customs duty exemption.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the HIV-VL test kits are “life-saving diagnostic kits” used for detection and prognosis of HIV-virus in a human body.
Case Title: M/s Goldstar Glasswares Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52752 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that bonafide declaration of value of goods can't be treated as suppression merely for being incorrect.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the declaration of the value of goods was a bonafide declaration and merely because it is ultimately found to be incorrect will not mean that the valuation was with a bad motive not declared correctly. Penalty under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act could not, therefore, have been imposed upon the assessee.
Case Title: Shri Rahul Agarwal v. Commissioner CGST, Customs & Central Excise, Jabalpur
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50395 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that construction sub-contractor cannot escape service tax liability when main contractor is taxable.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has stated that the construction of residential complexes was not exempt from service tax duty. Hence, the sub-contractors were liable to discharge their service tax liability on such services provided by them to the main contractor.
Notional Cost Of Maruti's Free Designs Supplied To Vendors Not Dutiable Under Central Excise: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Bosch Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, New Delhi
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. of 50587 of 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that notional cost of Maruti's free designs supplied to vendors not dutiable under Central Excise.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue whether the notional cost of drawings and designs supplied free of cost by Maruti to the vendor should be included in the assessable value of parts or components manufactured by vendor and cleared to Maruti for the purpose of payment of central excise duty.
CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely On Income Tax Data In Form 26AS
Case Title: M/s Shree Ganesh Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Indore
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50211 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the service tax demand cannot be based solely on Income Tax Data in Form 26AS without establishing receipt of consideration.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) stated that “Revenue cannot raise the demand on the basis of difference in the figures reflected in the ST-3 returns and those reflected in Form 26AS without examining the reasons for said difference and without establishing that the entire amount received by the appellant as reflected in the Form 26AS is the consideration for services provided and without examining whether the difference was because of any exemption or abatement”.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 55256 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that interest on delayed refund is statutorily mandated after 3 months under Section 11BB Of Central Excise Act.
Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates that if a duty refund is not processed within three months from the receipt of an application, the applicant is entitled to interest on the delayed amount. It empowers Central Government to fix rate between 5-30% through notification. Notification 67/2003 validly issued fixing 6% rate.
Case Title: M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 50720 of 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 'perk' products are 'wafer biscuits', not chocolates and are entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether Perk, ULTA Perk, Perk Poppers and Wafer Uncoated Reject manufactured by the assessee are classifiable under Excise Tariff Item 1905 32 11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under ETI 1905 32 90.
Demand U/S 73A Of Finance Act Unsustainable Without Proof Of Service Tax Collection: CESTAT
Case Title: Taj Sats Air Catering Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise, Delhi South
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51544 Of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that demand under Section 73A Of Finance Act unsustainable without proof of service tax collection.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that “the invoice does not indicate any service tax collection by the assessee. The assessee had merely collected VAT and AAI levy from their clients, and no amount representing Service tax has been collected. Consequently, the demand under Section 73A cannot be sustained in respect of 5 of the Show Cause Notices issued to the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s. Achiever International v. Commissioner of Customs – Delhi II
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 248 of 2012
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that goods not prohibited under foreign trade policy still require valid IEC (Importer Exporter Codes), import using bogus codes is impermissible.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that there is nothing in the FTDR Act (The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 which provides for any IEC holder to lend his IEC to somebody else or for anyone to import goods borrowing someone else's IEC.
No Service Tax On 'Upfront Fee' Received By DMRC From Customers Under Concession Agreement: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, & Service Tax
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 55198 of 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on 'upfront fee' received by DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) from customers under concession agreement.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the “upfront fee” received by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. from various customers under the Concession Agreements entered prior to 1.7.2010 is exigible to service tax on or after 1.7.2010 under “Renting of Immovable Property Services”.
Service Tax To Be Paid By Distributor, Not By Theatre Owner For Film Screening: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. M2K Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, (Delhi West)
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.54027 of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax has to be paid by the distributor under “Copy Right Service” for transfer of right by licence to screen the film in the theatre of the owner.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that “the purpose of the agreement and the intention of the parties is for screening of the film in the theatre, which cannot be treated as “Renting of Immovable Property Service”. Moreover, the element of consideration, i.e. the quid pro quo for services, which is a necessary ingredient of any taxable service is absent. The revenue has not been able to establish the service provider and service recipient relationship between the assessee and the distributor. Consequently, no service tax can be levied on the assessee.”
Customs Act | Mere Purchase Of Gold Without Bill Not Enough To Prove Gold Smuggling: CESTAT
Case Title: Rajesh Sehgal v. Principal Commissioner of Customs Preventive, New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51467 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere purchase of gold without bill not enough to prove gold smuggling.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) opined that the mere act of purchasing gold without bill is highly insufficient to confirm the grave allegations of conspiring the act of smuggling of gold. The order imposing penalty on the appellants and confiscating their money is not sustainable.
Case Title: M/s Environment Planning & Coordination Organization v. The Principal Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52116 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that CENVAT Credit can't be claimed on note sheets and sanction orders and required valid documents with mandatory details.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that it is not open to the assessee to take CENVAT credit on the basis of note sheets or sanction orders or invoices which do not have the essential details. The assessee could take CENVAT credit only on the strength of proper and valid documents.
No Service Tax On Target-Based Discounts From Maruti Suzuki To Dealers: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Vipul Motors Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur - I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52943 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on target-based discounts from Maruti Suzuki to dealers.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the incentives/ discounts received by the dealers of car manufacturer were not taxable under Auxiliary Service (BAS), as they were the part of a business transaction on a principle-to-principle basis.
Customs | Counter Vailing Duty Not Applicable On Import Of Pan Masala Processing Machines: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs – New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51630 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Counter Vailing Duty (CVD) is not applicable on import of pan masala processing machines.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the assessee is the manufacture of the PanMasala and has imported the machines for cutting / grinding / sorting of Areca Nuts (Supari/seed), the raw material of the Pan Masala. From the description of the three of the machines it becomes apparently clear that assessee has imported machines for carrying out such functions only as are specifically mentioned under CTH 8437200.
Case Title: M/s. Uflex Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)-New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51897 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that anti-dumping duty paid by mistake in self-assessment has no legal character of 'duty' and must be refunded.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) stated that the assessee had added the amount of Anti-dumping duty while self-assessing the customs duty liability. Hence the Anti-dumping duty added to the amount of duty while self-assessing the Bill of Entry cannot take the character of duty.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Castrol India Ltd.
Case Number: CENTRAL SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that movement of goods to carrying and forwarding agents in other states is stock transfer, not inter-state sale, central sales tax not leviable.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that “the supplies made from the stockyards/warehouses to the Distributors would be a local sale in the State where the stockyards/warehouses are situated. Until the goods are appropriated by the stockyards/warehouses from out of the stocks available with them, they continue in the inventory of the stockyards/warehouses. Thus, supplies made to the stockyards/warehouses are merely stock transfers.”
Case Title: M/s J.N. Investments & Trading Company Private Limited v. Additional Director General (Adjudication), New Delhi
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52875 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the transfer of approvals/allotments acquired from government involves business support services, attracts service tax.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the approvals and allotments so obtained are not 'profit a prendre' hence cannot be called as benefit arising out of immovable property. Assessees are rightly held to have rendered the Business Support Services to EIL/WWIL.
Case Title: M/s. T.A. Pai Management Institute v. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 2374 of 2011
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that placement services to MNCs by the educational trust is liable to service tax under 'manpower recruitment services'.
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the recruiting facility to MNCs and other recruiting organisations by the assessee is liable to service tax under the category of 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service'.
Skill Development Programmes Approved By Govt Qualify For Service Tax Exemption: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. M.M. Group v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 75950 of 2022
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Skill Development Programme approved by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India is eligible for the exemption from payment of service tax.
K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) stated that the programme undertaken by the assessee is approved by the Government and hence the activity undertaken by them is eligible for the exemption from payment of Service tax, as the said activity are covered under Sl. No. 9A of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012.
Loose Sheets And Private Diaries Not Sufficient Evidence For Excise Duty Demand: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s DD Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela
Case Number: Excise Appeal Nos. 76871-76872 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that loose sheets and private diaries is not sufficient evidence for excise duty demand.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) stated that mere tallying of certain entries, does not make out these loose sheets to be complete evidence of the purchases and sales and other details pertaining to the assessee.
Case Title: Riyaz Sayed Abdul Aziz v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 85411 of 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Section 114 AA Customs Act is applicable only for dummy exports made only on paper, not actual export of goods.
S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) stated that it has been made clear that the imposition of enhanced penalty under Section 114AA of Customs Act is applicable only for serious frauds being committed in cases where no goods are being exported, but only papers are being created for availing the number of benefits under various export promotion schemes.
Case Title: M/s. Raipur Development Authority v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53203 of 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that leasing out land for 90 years against one-time payment constitutes transfer of immovable property, exempt from service tax.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the act of transferring the land on lease for a period of 90 years against the one-time premium giving all rights of use, possession and even sale to the developer amounts to fall under the definition of service or under the definition of renting of immovable property.
Goods Used As Implants Or Rehabilitation Aids Are Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT
Case Title: Smith & Nephew Healthcare Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 87524 of 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that goods used as implants or rehabilitation aids are eligible for Customs Duty exemption.
S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) observed that “since, the implants such as repair of knee, hip and other joints, shoulder and various other parts of the body; repair of soft tissue injuries and degenerative conditions of the shoulder etc., are in the nature of instruments/implants described in item (B)(1), the impugned goods are also specifically covered under the List-30 and List-3 of the notifications No. 50/2017-Customs and No.01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate).”
No Excise Duty On Manufacture Of Drip Irrigation System And Its Component Parts: CESTAT
Case Title: Jain Irrigation Systems Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL No. 137 of 2007
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no excise duty on manufacture of drip irrigation system and its component parts.
S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) observed that the impugned goods viz., polytubes, microtubes, HDPE pipes were used for Drip irrigation systems, the appropriate classification in terms of the CBEC circular dated 16.03.1998 would be under sub-heading no. 8424.91, and not under chapter heading no. 39.17
Service Tax Not Leviable On Repairs Of School Building Run By Military Engineering Services: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Chaitanya Constructions v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 3572 of 2012
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax not leviable on repairs of school building run by military engineering services.
Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) opined that the services rendered to Military Engineering Services (MES) was in relation to Sainik School run by them and such building cannot be used for commerce and hence repairs of such building are beyond the scope of service tax.
Service Tax Not Leviable On Cricket Association Clubs's Services To Its Members: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Karnataka State Cricket Association v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore North
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 25437 of 2013
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) stated that service tax is not leviable on cricket association club services to its members, and further allowed Cenvat Credit on the LED score board.
Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) stated that the Commissioner's finding that the said LED score board has no nexus with the taxable service provided viz. Mandap Keeper service and other services is also devoid of merit. Therefore, denial of cenvat credit on LED score board cannot be sustained.
Case Title: M/s Play House Motion Pictures Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20876 of 2016
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax can't be levied on transfer or assignment of copyright of film produced under copyright service.
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether service tax can be levied on exhibition of films under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) or demand can be confirmed against transfer or assignment of copyright of the film produced by assessee under Copyright Service.
Case Title: M/s. Onmobile Global Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20430 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mobile value-added services to telephone service providers classified as online information database access and retrieval services (OIDAR), service tax applicable.
Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the Mobile Value-Added Services rendered by the assessee can be classified as 'Online Information Database Access and Retrieval Services' (OIDAR) as claimed by the Revenue or are they classifiable as 'Information Technology Software Services' (ITSS) as claimed by the assessee.
Drawback Not Allowed Where Refund Exceeds Market Value Of Goods: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Modak Dyeing & Printing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 53962 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that drawback not allowed where refund exceeds market value of goods.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that if the transaction value (FOB value) is so high, that the drawback due on the goods exceeds the market value of the goods, then, as per section 76(1) (b), no drawback shall be allowed.
Cenvat Credit Can Be Availed On Sugar Cess Paid On Imported Raw Sugar: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s A B Sugar Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ludhiana
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 2696 of 2012
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that cenvat credit can be availed on sugar cess paid on imported raw sugar.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of the sugar cess paid on imported raw sugar or not.
Tribunal Has Inherent Authority To Stay Orders Detrimental To Revenue: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. SKOT India
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40893/2024
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that tribunal has inherent authority to stay orders detrimental to revenue.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that “the power of taxation including its collection being an inherent attribute of sovereignty, the right of revenue to seek a stay of an order determinantal to the collection of taxes, cannot be lightly dismissed….……..we find force in the plea made by the revenue that Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 also contains the power for grant of a stay against an order or its part. In any case such a power is inherent in the powers of the Tribunal.”
No Service Tax On Catering Services Provided To Educational Institutions: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Smt. Kala Kudal v. The Commissioner, Central Excise & GST, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51606 Of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax on catering services provided to educational institutions.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the catering services provided by the assessee to a School with hostel facility are covered under the exemption from payment of service tax given at serial no.9 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
Revenue Cannot Enforce Optional Exemption Notification Without Assessee's Consent: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Goods v. M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 52196 OF 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that revenue cannot enforce optional exemption notification without assessee's consent.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that once an exemption is claimed, the assessee will not get CENVAT credit and may lose some other benefits. Therefore, it cannot be said that the optional exemption notification should be applied even if the assessee does not opt for it or for even for period before it opts for it.
DRI Has Jurisdiction To Issue Show Cause Notice In Drawback Cases: CESTAT
Case Title: Manasa Impex Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 290/2009
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) have the jurisdiction to issue show cause notice in drawback cases.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether DRI Officers have the jurisdiction to issue SCN under Section 75 of the Customs Act read with the relevant Rule.
Excise Duty Exemption Not Available On Industrial Sewing Machines With In-Built Motors: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Swarup Mechanical Works (Unit 1) v. Additional Director General (Adj.), Director General of GST Intelligence
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 52049 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that excise duty exemption not available on industrial sewing machines with in-built motors.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (S. No. 15) and its successor Notification No. 1/2011CE dated 1.3.2011 (S. No. 97) on the manufacturing of industrial sewing machines with in-built motors.
Curtain Glass Affixed To Building Not Removable, Hence Not Liable To Central Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi – II v. M/s AGV Alfag Ltd.
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 2764 OF 2011
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that curtain glass/ structural glazing affixed to building not removable, hence not liable to central excise duty.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the curtain glass fixed by the assessee in the form of works contract on the walls of buildings can be charged to central excise duty.
Refund Claim On Service Tax For Cancelled Property Bookings Maintainable: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax Goods And Service Tax and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.54979 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund claim on service tax for cancelled property bookings maintainable.
The Tribunal stated that the assessee had issued credit notes in respect of service which is not rendered to the customers on account of cancellation of the agreement and hence there was no scope of rendering any services on which the service tax could be levied.
Service Tax Not Leviable On Deposits Made Under Interim Orders: CESTAT
Case Title: Principal Commissioner v. M/s Micromax Informatics Limited
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50318 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax can't be levied on deposits made pursuant to interim orders.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were dealing with the issue of whether service tax can be levied on the amounts paid or deposited during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court as per interim orders.
ADG DRI Does Not Have Power To Declare DEPB Scripts Issued By DGFT Null And Void: CESTAT
Case Title: Pankaj Chordia v. The Commissioner of Customs, Cargo Complex
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50453 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that ADG DRI (Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) does not have power to declare DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) scripts issued by DGFT Directorate General of Foreign Trade) null and void.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the customs officers who cleared the goods also must have also accepted the DEPB scrips in good faith. At any rate, the DEPB scrips were validly issued by the DGFT and neither the Commissioner nor the DRI has the power to overrule the decision of the DGFT and hold that the DEPB scrips were ab initio null and void.
Refund Of CVD & SAD Paid After GST Introduction Maintainable U/S 142(3) Of CGST Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Rashtriya Metal Industries Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Surat
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 10388 OF 2020-SM
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund of CVD (Countervailing Duty) & SAD (Special Additional Duty) paid after GST introduction maintainable U/S 142(3) CGST Act.
Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) was addressing the issue of whether refund claim is admissible under Section 142 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 in lieu of CENVAT credit of CVD & SAD, where such CVD & SAD are paid after introduction of GST due to non-fulfilment of export obligations against the goods imported duty free, prior to introduction of GST.
Case Title: IBM India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Final Order No. 21279/2025
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that assessee liable to pay interest on short reversal of common cenvat credit used for exempted services.
The question before P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) was whether interest liability arises on the short reversals of the cenvat credit availed by the assessee on the exempted services.
Preloaded Software On Imported Navigation Devices Liable To Customs Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Lakshmi Access Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.2006 of 2012
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that value of preloaded software to be included in assessable value of imported navigation devices and is liable to customs duty.
Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the value of software preloaded/ etched into the imported navigation systems, be included in the assessable value of the said navigation systems and confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties sustainable.
Refund Can't Be Rejected On Grounds Of Classification Once Tax Liability Is Settled: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Airport Retail Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Gurgaon-II
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51677 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund cannot be rejected on grounds of classification once tax liability is settled.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that refund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, is permissible subject to two conditions: - the claim should have been raised before one year from the relevant date; and the claimant has not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest to any other persons.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Sood v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), CGST- Delhi
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51127 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that compensation for breach of agreement to sell land is not taxable as declared service U/S 66E(e) of the Finance Act.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the amount of Rs. 4.5 crores each received by the assessee from the land owners is compensation for the reneging on the agreement to sell. It does not fall under section 66E(e) and is not a declared service.
Case Title: Habasit Iakoka Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41230/2013
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has directed the Registry to refer two appeals to the President of CESTAT for the constitution of a Special Bench to hear and decide the matter against a common order.
Citing the principle of “comity of Courts,” the bench, consisting of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member), observed that since the Ahmedabad Bench had already heard an appeal from the same impugned order, it would be appropriate for the Chennai Bench to decline jurisdiction over the same subject matter.
CESTAT Quashes ₹56.47 Crore Customs Duty Demand On Dish TV Over Smart Card Classification
Case Name: Videocon D2H Limited/Dish TV v Additional Director General, DRI
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51007 OF 2020
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently set aside a ₹56.47 crore customs duty demand against Videocon D2H Limited (now Dish TV India Ltd) in a dispute over the classification of imported smart cards.
A coram of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Technical Member P V Subba Rao quashed an order dated April 28, 2020, passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), DRI.
Case Title: M/s Professional Examination Board v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52205 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the government examination board is not liable to service tax on examination fees collected from candidates.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) stated that the examination fees collected from the candidates appearing for the examination being conducted by the appellant/assessee cannot be considered as consideration for the supply of manpower recruitment and supply services to the state government departments.
Case Title: M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52667 of 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that IRCTC's (Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd.) licensing for the operation of food plazas is not liable to service tax under 'renting of immovable property'.
The Tribunal observed that the agreement was purely related to the transaction of business whereby the assessee was actually performing the activity of operation of catering and was not providing any service of renting of immovable property. The terms of the agreement make it abundantly clear as to what is the true and actual purpose of the agreement and the relationship between the parties.
Incorrect Declaration In Bill Of Entry Attracts Penalty U/S 114AA Of Customs Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Nitin Khandelwal v. Principal Commissioner, Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50914 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that imports and filing of the Bill of Entry are transactions of business under the Customs Act. Section 114AA would squarely apply to those transactions. In this case, the importer filed a Bill of Entry to clear goods imported by it and self-assessed the duty payable on them.
Case Title: M/s Simran Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50268 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that proceedings under Rule 16/16A Drawback Rules are merely execution proceedings; cannot modify value in shipping bills.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the proceedings to recover the drawback under Rules 16/16A of the Drawback Rules are in the nature of execution proceedings, and they cannot be used to modify the value or any other parameter in the Shipping Bills.
Case Title: M/s.Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52667 of 2015
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently held that the arrangement between Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) and private vendors for operating Food Plazas at railway premises does not amount to 'renting of immovable property' and, thus, does not attract service tax under that category.
A two-member coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P V Subba Rao held that the agreements were not lease transactions but business arrangements based on revenue sharing.
Case Title: M/s. Dynamic Infratech v. Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20455 of 2023
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that a show cause notice cannot be issued solely based on voluntary disclosure by the assessee under the SVLDRS Scheme [Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019].
The bench, consisting of P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member), agreed with the Commissioner that even though documents were placed before the authorities concerned, the original authority confirmed the demand only based on the SVLDRS Form-1 filed by the assessee, which is non-existent as per Clause 2(c) of Section 129 of the SVLDR Scheme.
Revenue Sharing Arrangements Not Taxable As Service U/S 65(90a) Of Finance Act: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52667 OF 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that revenue-sharing arrangements are not taxable as a service under Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the agreement was purely related to the transaction of business whereby the assessee was actually performing the activity of operation of catering and was not providing any service of renting of immovable property.
Case Title: M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50208 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that crowd-sourced information available on platforms like Wikipedia cannot be relied upon to fasten tax liability on the assessee.
The Tribunal opined that Wikipedia is an open source information available online and anyone can write about the topic and anyone else can edit it. Thereafter, somebody else can further edit it. It is not the opinion of any one expert but is only crowd-sourced information.
Advance Received Towards Sale Of Land Not Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: Suwalka & Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Jodhpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52874 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount of advance received by the assessee with respect to the sale of land is out of the scope of applicability of the provisions of the Finance Act, and hence, no service tax is leviable.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) stated that the assessee has successfully established that the activity undertaken with reference to the amount in question pertains to the sale of immovable property, and as such, he was not liable to pay any service tax on the amount received as an advance towards that sale.
Case Title: Royal Blankets v. Principal Commissioner, Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51721 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an Excel sheet recovered from the email account of the assessee can be relied upon to determine the value of imported goods, even without a certificate under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that Section 138C applies only when the document is printed or produced from a computer other than that of the assessee.
CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty Demand Against Wipro Over Tamil Nadu Govt's Free Laptop Scheme
Case Title: Wipro Ltd.v The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40803 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Chennai on Wednesday quashed the excise department's demand for additional duty from Wipro Ltd., ruling that the company's supply of laptops to the Tamil Nadu government for free distribution to students cannot be treated as a commercial sale and therefore cannot be taxed at retail price.
A two-member bench comprising Judicial Member P Dinesha and Technical Member M Ajit Kumar said the case was covered by an earlier decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the PG Electroplast matter where it was held that that the free distribution of colour TVs to poorer sections on behalf of the government can't be called a commercial activity.
Case Title: M/s. Ericsson India Private Limited v. Additional Director General
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50439 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that royalty paid for technical know-how is not a 'condition of sale' merely because it is included in the value of imported goods.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemembika R. Priya (Technical Member) opined that both the Technical Agreements relate to transfer of technical know-how, amongst others, in the form of design sheets detailing manufacturing methods and specifications of raw materials for all the components used in the manufacture/assemble or the products and the payment on royalty is not a condition of sale of imported goods and in fact relates to post import activities.
SSI Exemption Can't Be Denied Merely For Using Common/Assigned Brand Names: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Aashish Enterprises v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42303 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that SSI (Small Scale Industry) Exemption can't be denied merely for using common/assigned brand names.
The Tribunal opined that once a brand name is legally assigned or transferred, the SSI unit becomes the “owner” of the brand. Therefore, it is no longer the “brand name of another person,” and the restriction in Condition No. 4 of Notification No. 8/2003-CE does not apply.
Case Title: M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41366 & 41367 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that variable 'P' under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, refers only to common credit, not total credit, prior to 01.04.2016.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether, for the tax periods April 2012 to March 2014, the variable “P” in Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would denote total credit or common credit.
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the FOB (Free On Board) value determined between the parties is protected by privity of contract, and it cannot be modified by a stranger to the contract.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) opined that FOB value is the product of negotiations and deliberations between the parties to the contract, which value cannot be modified by any stranger to the contract by virtue of the principle of “privity of contract”. The FOB value of the individual components declared by the assessee, therefore, could not have been rejected.
Customs | AIFTA Exemption Cannot Be Denied Without Verifying Certificate Of Origin: CESTAT
Case Title: Marvel Silver v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86363 OF 2023
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the AIFTA (ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement) exemption cannot be denied without verifying the certificate of origin.
Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) noted that there is no allegation, let alone ascertainment, that the 'certificate of origin' corresponding to each of the impugned consignments is not authentic or not issued by the competent authority. There is no reasoning offered for concluding that the description of the impugned goods did not conform to the contents of the certificate or packing lists.
Case Title: M/s Vortex Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50494 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the differential duty paid for provisional release is not a pre-deposit. Hence, refund interest payable only at 6% U/S 27A Customs Act, not 12% U/S 35FF Central Excise Act.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) opined that all those goods were ordered to be released as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, at the assessee's own request for provisional release of the goods. This apparent and admitted fact is sufficient to hold that the amounts in question cannot be considered as an amount deposited under protest. Hence, Section 35FF is held to not be applicable to the given set of circumstances.
Case Title: G Amphray Laboratories v. Commissioner of Customs (NS-III)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87856 OF 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that confiscation, penalty & fine cannot be imposed on IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) demand arising from breach of pre-import condition under Customs Act.
Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) opined that the IGST demand arose because of the breach of the pre-import condition. Although IGST is payable for such a breach, no confiscation or penalty can be imposed merely on that ground.
Case Title: KDS Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (ICD) New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2009
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that electronic evidence from an unsealed CPU without any Section 139C certificate under the Customs Act cannot form the basis of assessment.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the computer/ CPU was not sealed at the time of panchnama and was lying with the investigating agency for 47 days, after which it was first examined and then sealed, which raises questions about the authenticity of the data.
Case Title: M/s Texcomash Export & Sh. N.K. Rajgarhia v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 724 of 2005
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that drawback cannot be denied on the grounds of alleged forgery by a foreign buyer after goods are exported under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 1995.
The single bench consists of (Judicial Member) opined that any forgery, if revealed during a further investigation being committed by the Russian company vis-a-vis the Landing certificate in the light of Drawback Rules in India, is highly insufficient to deny the claim of drawback, specifically when the goods have crossed Indian territory and to reach to a place outside India.
Case Title: Continental Trading Co. v. Principal Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51966 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that an importer cannot be penalised for misdeclaration merely because other importers declared high prices for similar goods under the Customs Valuation Rules.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the mere fact that another importer had imported identical goods from the same overseas exporter at different prices does not prove that the assessee had mis-declared anything in the Bill of Entry.
Advertisement, Promotional And Management Service Payments Excluded From Customs Valuation: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Triumph Motorcycles (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Director General (Adjudication), D.R.I., New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50212 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Advertisement and Promotional Expenses and Management Service Fees (APE and MSF) payments are independent transactions, and cannot be included in the transaction value of imported goods.
The issue before the Tribunal was whether the advertisement and promotional expenses incurred by the assessee in India are required to be added to the value of the imported goods, treating the said amount as constituting “condition of sale” of imported goods under section 14(1) of the Customs Act read with rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Valuation Rules, 2007.
Case Title: Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40011 to 40014 of 2021
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the Non-Obstante Clause in Section 142(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) cannot override the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that section 142(5) does not refer to overriding any particular provision, and hence the non obstante clause has to be examined and given a restricted meaning limited to the context in which it is used.
Case Title: M/s Leakless Gasket India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 55311 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Twaron Para Aramid Pulp is classified as 'textile flock', hence, the importers are liable for a higher customs duty.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the Twaron Para Aramid Pulp imported by the assessee was classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 5601 22 00 or under CTI 5601 30 00.
Commission-Based Services To Foreign Clients As Agent Qualifies As 'Export Of Service': CESTAT
Case title: YKK India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Rohtak
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that commission-based services such as sales facilitation and regional support services provided by Indian counterparts to foreign companies qualified as 'export' and not as 'Business Auxiliary Services'.
The assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of zippers and parts thereof in India and to neighbouring foreign companies, including YKK Singapore located in Singapore. The Department conducted an audit for FY 2006–07 to 2010–11, which led to two show cause notices—one covering FY 2006–07 to 2010–11 and the other covering FY 2011–12. Consequently, a Service Tax demand totalling Rs. 68,59,980 and CENVAT Credit recovery of Rs. 13,08,503, along with interest and penalties, was confirmed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act.
Case Name: Glenworth Estate Ltd.
Case No. : Service Tax Appeal No. 40031 of 2018
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside service tax demand on commission paid to foreign agents for sale of black tea, finding that 'essential characteristic' of agricultural produce is retained.
CESTAT Chennai clarified that black tea gets covered by the expression 'in relation to agriculture' appearing in Notification 14/2004-S.T. (as amended) dated September 10, 2004 observes that “Once the black tea is found to be agricultural produce, services provided by a commission agent for sale or purchase of agricultural produce is covered by the negative list…”
Case Title: Tower Vision India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax-Gurugram
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 60109 of 2022
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the provisions of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, do not extend to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, and accordingly set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 4 crores.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) opined that the provision of Chapter V of the Finance Act does not extend to J&K. Once the provisions of the Finance Act are not applicable in the State of J&K, then service tax cannot be demanded by resorting to POPS Rules, which cannot override the statutory provisions.
Case Title: Chennai Citi Centre Holdings (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40364 of 2017
The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chennai on Friday held that a profit-sharing arrangement for managing a mall's parking facility does not amount to leasing of space and therefore is not liable to service tax.
The appeal was against an order of Commissioner of Service Tax that had upheld a service tax demand of over Rs 20 lakh, treating the parking arrangement between CCCHPL and SPIPL as leasing of space and therefore taxable.
Bharat Aluminium Entitled To CENVAT Credit On Mining Services Used For Bauxite Extraction: CESTAT
Case Title: The Commissioner, & Central Excise v. M/s Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 55659 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Bharat Aluminium is entitled to CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit on mining services used for bauxite extraction.
Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) agreed with the Principal Commissioner that since mining services were used for the extraction of bauxite from the mines owned by BALCO, and this bauxite was sent to Vendanta for conversion into alumina, which is a basic raw material used in the manufacture of aluminium by BALCO, there is a direct nexus between extraction of bauxite from the mines and the production of aluminium.
Case Title: Navin Fluorine International Limited v. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 51623 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that samples sent for research and development (R&D) and quality testing are not finished goods, and their dispatch to a laboratory cannot be treated as clandestine removal.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) stated that the assessee cleared samples for testing purposes to its in-house facility at Surat in the State of Gujarat and had not cleared finished goods. It cannot, therefore, be said that the assessee was engaged in clandestine removal of goods.
Case Title: M/s. Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51026 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Oppo Mobiles is eligible for customs exemption on microphones & receivers used in PCBA (Printed Circuit Board Assembly) prior to 06.07.2019.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that by virtue of the amendment Notification dated 06.07.2019, customs duty would also be leviable on microphones and receivers when imported into India, even if they are imported for the manufacture of PCBA of cellular mobile phones.
Case Name: Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 40085/2024
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held Xiaomi India liable for differential customs duties on royalties to Qualcomm and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software under various agreements for importing and selling Xiaomi-branded mobile phones and components.
The Bench comprising of Mr. M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) and Mr. P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) examined whether royalty payments were linked to imported goods and thus dutiable, concluded that “Royalties and License Fees paid by Xiaomi India are addable to the assessable value of the impugned goods as per Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the differential duty is payable by Xiaomi India for the extended period”.
Case Name: Tulsyan NEC Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case No. : Service Tax Appeal No. 40031 of 2018
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the denial of service tax credit distributed by the assessee, as an Input Service Distributor (ISD), to its unit. The Tribunal found that although invoices were issued in the name of the Branch Office, such invoices were “received” by the Head Office of the assessee, making it eligible to avail and distribute credit.
The Bench comprising Mr. M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) and Mr. Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member), on a perusal of connected documents such as contractual letters, delivery/performance certificates, debit notes, ledger vouchers, bank payment details and other supporting documents, noted that there was a “lack of nexus” to indicate shell suppliers or circular payments.
Case Title: M/s. Hotel President Planet v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Indore
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50157 of 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is payable on free room nights and food discounts received in kind under a lease agreement with a hotel.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) was examining whether the complementary nights extended by the lessee to the lessor, along with the respective food discount, are to be considered as part of the gross value/taxable value.
Customs Duty Payable On Imported Goods Lost In Fire; Exemption Not Available: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title: M/s Ajanta Soya Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51089 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that imported goods which are not used for manufacturing due to fire do not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 and hence, customs duty is payable on such goods.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) held that the assessee was liable to pay the customs duty on entire quantity of the Crude Palm Oil which was either lost in the fire accident or was found short along with interest.
Case Name: Western Geco International Ltd. vs. The Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal NO. 58089 OF 2013
The Principal Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has set aside service tax demand on offshore seismic survey (data acquisition) by Western Geco International Ltd., Gurugram (project office of Western Geco British Virgin Islands).
The Bench comprising of Mr. P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) and Ms. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) examined if data acquired offshore and processing at the Mumbai project office would constitute two separate services. The CESTAT thus observed “Data analysis was not a separate service even though the cost of data analysis was indicated in the contract as 4% of the basic price.”
Case Title: M/s GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 51956 of 2014
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the assessee is ineligible for excise duty refund on ambulances, as it is neither a manufacturer nor a buyer under Section 11B(2)(e) Central Excise Act. The bench further noted that the assessee was merely operating the ambulances under a government agreement, which does not make him a manufacturer or buyer.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the assessee is not a manufacturer or a buyer of the Ambulances, the differential duty paid on which the assessee seeks to claim as a refund. The Ambulances are not registered in their names. They are not the owners of the vehicles.
Case Title: M/s Chemspark India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I
Custom Appeal No. 86827 of 2021
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has set aside the absolute confiscation of imported goods ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that once the goods had already been re-exported prior to the filing of the Revenue appeal, the order for absolute confiscation of goods is not sustainable in law.
The Bench of Member (Judicial) Ajay Sharma was hearing an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeal). The Bench stated that without taking into account that the re-export of the goods in issue had already taken place prior to the filing of the appeal by Revenue. Once the goods have been re-exported certainly they were not available for confiscation. As per settled position of law that where the goods are no longer available for confiscation, such confiscation cannot be ordered, except where they have been cleared under bond etc. which is not the case herein.
Case Title: Sojitz India private limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 87356 of 2019
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has stated that the commission earned for acting as Indenting agent to its foreign group companies qualifies as 'Export of Services', and therefore is not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Division Bench comprising Member (Judicial) S.K. Mohanty and Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban set aside the ₹2.77 crore service tax demand (along with interest and penalty) confirmed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST Thane Rural.
Peanut Butter Similar To Margarine; Not Exempt From Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Agro Tech Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 27780 of 2013
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Peanut Butter is similar to Margarine in terms of usage, origin, fat content, etc. and therefore not eligible for excise duty exemption.
Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) examined whether Peanut Butter could be considered similar to Margarine. If found similar, then it would not be exempt from excise duty; and if not similar, the exemption would apply.
Revenue Cannot Treat Turnover Mismatch As Duty Evasion Without Examining On Merits: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Gold Seal Engineering Products Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Navi Mumbai Commissionerate
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 87141 of 2023
The CESTAT Mumbai has held that when an assessee shows sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal within the statutorily permissible condonable period of 30 days, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot reject the appeal on limitation without examining the merits.
A Bench of the CESTAT comprising of Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban was hearing the appeal, challenging the order of the Commissioner(Appeal) whereby appeal of the assessee was dismissed as time-barred by 26 days and thereby the automatic confirmation of differential duty demand of ₹2,64,039 along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹1 Crore Interest, Penalty On Hindustan Zinc For Reversed CENVAT Credit
Case Detail: Hindustan Zinc Limited vs. The Commissioner
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17723/2025
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside disallowance of CENVAT credit as well as interest and penalty worth about Rs. 1 crore for electricity wheeled out to sister concerns as well as to State Electricity Board.
In an order dated November 24, 2025, the Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (Principal Bench) and Smt. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) set aside six orders, notices creating excise duty demand on input and input services used in Captive Power Plant for generation of electricity. As for electricity sold to the State Electricity Board, the CESTAT from order passed by the Commissioner inferred that CENVAT credit had been reversed on monthly basis prior to the issuance of the show cause notice.
No Service Tax On Income Received From Joint Venture: CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹5.72 Crore Demand
Case Title: M/s. Rahee Infratech Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 76709 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an assessee's/partner's share of income from a joint venture is not consideration for any taxable service and therefore not liable to Service Tax.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the activities undertaken by a partner/co-venturer for the mutual benefit of the partnership/joint venture cannot be regarded as a service rendered by one person to another for consideration and therefore cannot be taxed.
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 20476 of 2018
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that bunker supplies of High Viscosity Furnace Oil (HVFO) made by Bharat Petroleum to the vessel to 'cable ship ASEAN explorer' qualify as duty-free exports under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 46/2001-CE(NT).
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the supplies of High Viscosity Furnace Oil (HVFO) made by Bharat Petroleum to the vessel 'Cable Ship ASEAN Explorer' qualify as duty-free exports under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 46/2001-CE(NT), or whether such supplies are liable to Central Excise duty as the vessel cannot be considered as a 'foreign-going vessel' under Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Detail: Indian Tobacco Traders vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax Guntur - GST
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 30390 of 2018
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demand on Indian Tobacco Traders under the heading Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service, as tobacco leaves were transported through individual truck owners.
In an order dated November 28, 2025 the Bench comprising Mr. A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) clarified that even if a person had provided Goods Transport Service but has not issued the consignment note, Service Tax from that person cannot be recovered under the category of GTA. The CESTAT rejected the contention of the Service Tax Department that consignment notes may be, in any form like chit, bill even weighing slip given to the truck owner may be treated as consignment note.
No Service Tax On Cost Allocation For Pet-Care Products Of Mars International: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title: M/s Mars International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Tax, Hyderabad - II
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 22990 of 2014
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Mars International is not liable to service tax on cost allocations for developing pet-care products. The bench further opined that the arrangement with the group companies did not involve a service provider-service recipient relationship, and therefore, the service is not taxable.
ANGAD PRASAD (Judicial Member) and A.K. JYOTISHI (Technical Member) found that the Mars International/assessee is engaged in the manufacture of pet care products or acquires products from co-manufacture. The companies under the agreement are group companies; these companies are doing research for developing the pet care products in-house. Therefore, the services are not taxable under Section 65 (105) (za) of the Finance Act.
Case Title: M/s Omaxe Buildhome Limited vs. Commissioner of GST Delhi-East
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 50776 of 2018
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked in the absence of clear evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed the appeal against the order of Commissioner(appeals) filed by the assessee M/s Omaxe Buildhome Ltd., by stating that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely because the appellant had supressed the material facts and had contravened to provsions of the Finance Act. Thereby, setting aside the demand of service tax raised on car parking charges.
Case Title: BILT Graphics Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 85636 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that sales tax deferred under a State incentive scheme and later discharged at Net Present Value (NPV) cannot be treated as “sales tax not paid” for the purpose of including it in the transaction value for levy of Central Excise duty.
A Division Bench of C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the demand raised under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with equal penalty under Section 11AC.
24K Oval Pendants Qualify As Gold Jewellery, Eligible For Duty Exemption: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Detail: R.K. Digital Solutions vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad – GST
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 30206 of 2024
The Hyderabad Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a matter concerning import of oval shaped gold pendants, has favoured classification under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7113 1910 as 'articles of jewellery' instead of CTH 7108 1300 as 'semi-manufactured gold'
In a recent order dated November 28, 2025 the Bench comprising A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member), examined the two competing tariff headings CTH 7108 (unwrought/semi-manufactured gold) and CTH 7113 (articles of jewellery). The CESTAT going by the General Rules of Interpretation held that oval shaped pendants with hook could be worn on the body as pendant and thus, qualified as “articles of jewellery”.
Case Title: M/s. Kalmar India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal Nos. 40368 to 40370 of 2021
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that delay by the refund authority in sanctioning a refund claim is 'sufficient cause' for excluding limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that ……The practical incapacity of the Refund-Sanctioning Officer to render an effective, reasoned decision within a reasonable time rendered that remedy ineffectual for timely redress. The prolonged inaction on the part of the Department constitutes a “sufficient cause” for excluding the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Case Title: Paul Foskey Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-V
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 85569 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that services rendered by Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. to its overseas group entity Marriott Hong Kong qualify as export of services, and therefore cannot be subjected to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Division Bench of Member (Judicial) S.K. Mohanty and Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban allowed three connected appeals filed by Marriott India, and set aside the entire service tax demand, penalties, and interest confirmed by the Commissioner through Order-in-Original.
Case Title: M/s. Zuari Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise
Case Number: Central Excise Appeal No. 20591 of 2022
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that manufacturing and packaging of cement are works service contracts, not civil construction activities, and therefore CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit cannot be denied.
Regarding the allegation of ineligible CENVAT credit availed by the assessee on lease premium, the bench consists of P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) found that since the disputed services were ultimately meant for accomplishing the objective of providing the output service, it cannot be said that since the phrase 'setting up' was specifically excluded in the inclusive part of definition of input service, the benefit of CENVAT credit should be denied.
Case Title: M/s Chauhan Enterprises v. Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70427 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that services, such as meter reading, billing, and connection/disconnection of electricity, are ancillary services of transmission and distribution of electricity and service tax is not payable for these services.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) examined whether the services such as meter reading, collection of revenue, connection and disconnection of electricity supply would be covered under the scope of transmission and distribution of electricity as specified under Section 66D of the Negative List of Services of Finance Act, 1994.
Service Tax Cannot Be Levied On Rent-A-Cab Services Provided To SEZ Units: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. PRR Travels v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42331 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the service tax cannot be levied on rent-a-cab services provided to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units as per the overriding effect under Section 51 of the SEZ Act (The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005).
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the SEZ Act is a self-contained Act which provides exemptions on taxes, duties, cess, drawbacks and concessions on imports and exports of goods and on supply of services to the Developers and Units within a SEZ for carrying on authorised operations. Therefore, in terms of sections 51 and 26 of the SEZ Act, no notification is required to be issued under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, in this regard.
Case Title: M/s. Deccan Construction Company v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40931 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the construction of school and college buildings during 2008-2012 is not taxable as commercial or industrial construction service.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the construction of buildings for educational institutions, such as schools and colleges, during 2008–2012, is taxable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and whether educational institutions charging fees can be considered “commercial” for purposes of Section 65(25b).
Case Title: Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 85519 of 2016
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that sales tax deferred under a State incentive scheme and subsequently discharged by payment of its Net Present Value (NPV) cannot be treated as “sales tax not paid” so as to be added back to the transaction value for levy of central excise duty.
A Division Bench comprising C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Grindwell Norton Ltd. and set aside the demand of central excise duty along with interest and penalty confirmed under Sections 11A, 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title: M/s Minerva Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85797 of 2022
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that reassessment of Bills of Entry cannot be sought at a belated stage after clearance of goods merely to claim refund on the basis of a favourable Supreme Court judgment delivered in another assessee's case.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Minerva Enterprises and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, which had refused reassessment of 56 Bills of Entry cleared in 2015, stating that Both the provisions would go to indicate that after clearance of goods neither reassessment nor amendment of the Bills of Entry could be done in the normal circumstances, unless the exceptions noted above, which is admittedly found absent in the Appellant's case, apart from the fact that the sole purpose for reassessment was to enable the Appellant to get refund as a consequence of judgment passed in another case i.e. in SRF Limited, cited supra. Such a refund is hit by the principle laid down in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India.
Case Title: M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42213 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere paper trail or endorsed bills of entry without actual movement of goods is not enough to claim CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that mere creation of paperwork or paper trail to indicate movement of goods, or mere endorsement of Bills of Entry, is not sufficient to establish eligibility for credit. The essential conditions required for availing credit have therefore not been fulfilled.
Service Tax Not Payable On Royalty Received For Group Companies' Use Of Copyrighted Logo: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40635 and 40636 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not payable on royalty received for group companies' use of the copyrighted 'TTK' Logo founded by T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. (assessee).
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) examined whether the demand of service for the 'TTK' logo of the assessee used by its group companies under Intellectual Property Rights service is tenable.
Zinc EDTA Is Fertiliser, Not A Chemical; Lower Customs Duty Applicable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Coromandel International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40440 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Zinc EDTA is classifiable as a fertiliser under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 3105 9090, and not a chemical salt under CTI 29224990 as stated by the revenue.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) noted that Zinc EDTA contains Nitrogen, which is an essential fertilising element.
Case Title: NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research v. Commissioner of Central Excise, GST, Rohtak
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 60680 of 2017
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has held that revenue-sharing arrangements between a hospital and diagnostic service providers (DSPs) do not amount to provision of “Business Support Service” (BSS) under the Finance Act, 1994, and are therefore not liable to service tax.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research, setting aside the service tax demand confirmed against the hospital for the period 2008–09 to 2013–14 . The Bench stated that mere providing of a building along with some basic amenities like electricity, water, sewage etc. cannot be qualified as 'support service' for running a business. These facilities are provided to enable the diagnostic service providers to render services as an integral part of healthcare services.
Case Title: M/s. Aravindh Eye Hospital v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42460 of 2014
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that staff reimbursement, training, and hospital management in a joint venture are not taxable under the service tax.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that the receipts characterised as “royalty”/“management fee” are integrally connected with the provision of healthcare services and do not constitute a separate taxable Management or Business Consultancy Service. The payments are in substance revenue sharing for collaborative clinical management, and there is no element of service among the joint venture partners.
Case Title: M/s. Narru Guru Shantha Siva Kamal v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 76453 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the foreign markings available on the gold biscuits are not sufficient to establish the smuggled nature of the gold.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the gold recovered from the assessee was neither established to be of foreign origin nor established to be smuggled in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the gold recovered from the assessee is not liable for confiscation.
Case Title: Silk Air (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Cochin
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 20886 of 2017
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has held that no Service Tax liability can be applied under the reverse charge mechanism on an Indian branch where the software maintenance services were contracted, received and consumed entirely outside India. The Tribunal further held that payments made towards hotel expenses of guests cannot be treated as taxable “Sponsorship Services”.
A Division Bench comprising P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Silk Air (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the Service Tax demand along with penalties confirmed under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Detail: Godfrey Phillips India Limited vs. Commissioner Central Tax
The Delhi Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demand on the activity of investing in Mutual Funds as such activities undertaken by Godfrey Phillips India Limited (Appellant) would be different from 'trading in securities' and cannot be considered as an exempted service in terms of section 66D(e) of the Finance Act.
In an order dated December 05, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Shri. P..V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that activity of subscription and redemption of units of Mutual Funds cannot be said to be an activity of sale and purchase of the securities and therefore, not an activity relating to trading and securities.
Case Title: Shri Srimanta Rakshit v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75674 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that separate proceedings under the Customs Act are not permissible once CBLR (Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018) proceedings are initiated.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that once separate proceedings have been initiated against the assessee under CBLR, 2018, for violation of the provisions of the said Regulations, no separate penalty is warranted on the assessee under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as no offence under the Customs Act, 1962, has been established against the assessee.
Case Title: M/s Eagle International v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75332 of 2023
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Customs cannot directly rely on NIDB (National Import Database) data to enhance import value.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) noted that the adjudicating authority straightaway has re-determined the value on the basis of NIDB data retrieved, indicating the Bill of Entry and the description of the goods, which is legally not maintainable.
Case Title: M/s Silver Line Global Freight Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 51371 of 2025
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside the revocation of a Customs Broker licence, holding that mis-declaration of goods by the exporter, by itself, does not establish violation of obligations under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.
A Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member – Technical) allowed the appeal filed by the assesse, M/s Silver Line Global Freight Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the order of the Commissioner of Customs revoking the broker's licence, forfeiting the security deposit and imposing penalty.
Refund Cannot Be Denied When CA Certificate & Ledger Confirms Excess Excise Duty: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title: M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. The Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 77195 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the assessee is entitled to a refund of excess excise duty since both the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the ledger clearly established that the duty was paid in excess and was never passed on to any third party.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the assessee has filed a Chartered Accountant's Certificate, which certifies that excise duty has not been passed on to any third party and was also shown as receivable from the Government of India.
Case Title: M/s. ITC Limited v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 77011 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that railway receipts and STTG (Service Tax Certificate for Transportation of Goods) Certificates are valid documents for taking CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit even prior to 27.08.2014.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the STTG Certificates issued by the Railways have been prescribed as a document for availing credit with effect from 27.08.2014. However, railway receipts, which contain all details as prescribed under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, continue to be a relevant document for the availment of credit prior to and after 27.08.2014 also.
Case Title: M/s. Jennex Granite Industries v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41068 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, the term 'prohibition' includes both complete and partial restrictions under the Foreign Trade Policy. Hence, restricted goods imported without fulfilling mandatory conditions are treated as prohibited, which attracts confiscation and a penalty.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member) noted that once the goods are restricted, either subject to any conditions or otherwise, they become prohibited goods if the condition is not complied with.
Import Of Technical Designs Not 'Design Service'; No Extended Limitation Or Penalty: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-III
Appeal Nos.: ST/87589/2013 & ST/87590/2013
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has delivered a significant ruling holding that import of technical know-how, engineering drawings and designs transferred permanently for manufacturing in India cannot be taxed as “Design Services” under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) set aside the entire Service Tax demand of ₹21.79 crore, along with interest and penalties, confirming that the transaction was an outright purchase of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and not a taxable service.
Case Title: M/s. Terai Overseas Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 76508 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that knitted ready-made garments, such as Gents' shirts, Ladies' dresses, and coats, are classifiable under CTH 6102; hence, the exporters are entitled to a 10% drawback rate subject to a maximum of Rs. 45/- per piece.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) stated that from the descriptions of the goods as contained in the concerned shipping bills, it can be observed that the said goods, mostly including 'Gents shirts', 'Ladies dress', 'Ladies long coat', 'Ladies blouse', etc., are in the nature of knitted readymade garments, which squarely fall under the CTH 6102 as mentioned in the Public Notice No. 5/1995, which deals with 'ready-made garments'. Under the said entry pertaining to CTH 6102, the drawback rate would be 10% of FOB value subject to a maximum of Rs. 45/- per piece.
Case Title: Paramount Dyes and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 85305 of 2017
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that commission received in India for facilitating sales of goods for foreign suppliers amounts to “export of service” and cannot be taxed under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
A Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the Service Tax demand, interest, and penalties relating to the period 2004–2009.
Case Title: SMV Beverages Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 86054 of 2015
In a significant relief to SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd., the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that incentives received from Pepsi Foods for advertising and promotional activities cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The Tribunal followed a Larger Bench ruling which categorically held that section 65(19) of the Finance Act does not cover promotion of brand name or trademark of a client.
A Bench comprising Mr. S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member), while allowing the appeal, of the assessee stated that the appellant was promoting the trademark/brand name of Pepsi Foods, but section 65(19) of the Finance Act does not cover promotion of brand name or trademark of a client. It cannot, therefore, be urged that BAS was provided by the appellant to Pepsi Foods.
Case Title: Shri Surendra Kumar Jain v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.70033 of 2024
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that goods cannot be confiscated merely on the basis of a local market survey or opinion in the absence of proof of smuggling. The Tribunal observed that the burden to prove that the goods are smuggled lies on the department.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) stated that the Department has not discharged its burden. Since betel nuts are also produced in India. In the absence of any evidence that confiscated goods were illegally smuggled into India, the same cannot be confiscated merely based on local market survey/opinion.
Case Title: M/s Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Meerut-I
Case Number: Excise Appeal No.70294 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that storing finished goods outside the factory premises due to space constraints is connected with the assessee's business operation. Therefore, CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit on 'warehousing services' is admissible as an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and cannot be denied.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) stated that how a business has to be run cannot be dictated by the officers of the Department, and it should be left to the prerogative and wisdom of the business enterprises to address their business exigencies in the best possible manner, and the options available to them.
Case Title: J Uthaman v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40567 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act cannot be imposed unless the department proves mens rea and a clear act of abetment with cogent evidence.
The Tribunal clarified that Section 114 has a penal character of being a penalty in personam, placing the burden squarely on the Customs Department to establish the guilt.
Case Title: M/s. Face IT Systems LLP v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.76501 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Face Recognition Access Control Systems perform data processing functions, such as data storage, read-write memory operations and automated processing, and therefore qualify as an Automatic Data Processing Machine under CTH 8471. The bench clarified that these systems are eligible for NIL customs duty exemption.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) noted that the Access Controller Face Recognition System has read and write memory, has 4 GB RAM, 64 GB nano flash, is capable of processing program, can read from camera, card and QR code and there is embedded Linux Operating System. It is capable for automatic face detection even with mask. The configuration and functions show that there cannot be any doubt that the device has all the functions qualifying to be classified as Automatic Data Processing Machine.
Customs | Import Duty Must Be Determined At Time Of Import, Not On Later Sale Price: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41046 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that customs duty is required to be assessed on the transaction value declared at the time of import, as reflected in the supplier's invoice. Any subsequent sale or higher remittance made after the import cannot be relied upon to reject the declared value.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the addition under the guise of short-payment of duty, which related to the actual remittances made by the assessee/HDFC Bank to its foreign suppliers as compared to the declared/transaction value at the time of import, is justified or not.
Case Title: M/s. ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42458 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be levied on membership and participation fees paid to foreign associations such as International Packaging Group (IPG) or International Packaging Forum Network (IPFN) for the period prior to 01.07.2012.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri (Technical Member) stated that the demand for the period prior to 1.7.2012 on IPG/IFPN is unsustainable as there was no evidence that these bodies are mere association of persons and not imported neither have rendered any services to the appellant and the condition of relationship of service recipient with the service provider is absent.
Service Tax | Tax Paid Under Wrong Service Category Cannot Be Demanded Again: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 85614 of 2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand raised against the assesse, holding that once service tax has already been paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism, merely under a wrong service category, the department cannot demand the same tax again.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), granting consequential relief to the assessee.
Case Title: Shri Dharanidhar Ghosh v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75242 of 2022
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a mere allegation by a co-accused that the assessee handed over gold cannot serve as the sole basis for imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The bench clarified that in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence supporting this claim, the statement of the co-accused is not sufficient to implicate the assessee in the said offence.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that in the absence of any independent corroboration, such an exculpatory statement of the co-accused cannot be the sole basis for implicating the assessee in the alleged offence and imposition of penalty on him.
Case Title: M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Air)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40959 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that merely sending imported goods to a job worker for manufacture does not violative exemption conditions. Since there was no allegation of the sale of goods, the exemption of benefit under Notification No. 73/2006-Cus dated 10.07.2006 cannot be denied to Godrej.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) observed that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order alleged that the assessee had sold the imported goods to the job worker. In the absence of any such allegation, merely dispatching the goods to a job worker for manufacture cannot be a ground to deny the exemption benefit.
Case Title: M/s. WR Grace & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 42318 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a refund claim cannot be rejected solely because the Chartered Accountant certificate was not submitted in a prescribed or revised format.
The bench opined that the format prescribed under the public notice is only indicative, and once the assessee has produced documents evidencing payment of VAT/CST, the refund cannot be denied merely due to a technical lapse in the format of the Chartered Accountant certificate.
Case Title: Shri Anil Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.79423 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that seizure of goods cannot be sustained merely on the assumption that they were intended for export through non-specified routes. In the absence of any corroborative evidence establishing intent to export illegally, such presumption alone is insufficient to justify such seizure.
Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) opined that the mere presumption that the goods were meant for export to Nepal through other than the specified routes cannot be a valid reason to uphold the seizure in the absence of any other corroborative evidence to the said effect.
Case Detail: Ashutosh Metal Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) confirmed demand of service tax on commission earned on account of sale of agricultural produce, Indian Raw Cotton under the head 'Business Auxiliary Service'.
The CESTAT upheld order by the lower authority fastening service tax liability of ₹71.75 lakhs and ₹90.56 lakhs for the periods 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.
Case Title: M/S KEC International
Case No.: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Panchkula
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹18.95 crore raised against the assessee, KEC International, holding that the Department wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation without establishing any intent to evade tax .
A Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Mr. P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and quashed the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Panchkula. solely on limitation grounds, holding that the extended period under Section 73 cannot be invoked without proven mens rea deliberate fraud, suppression with evasion intent, or willful misstatement as mandated by Supreme Court in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals (1995) 78 ELT 401 (SC).
Case Title: M/s Anax Air Services Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Airport and General)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 50848 of 2025
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the cancellation of a Customs Broker's licence after finding that the broker helped export prohibited goods by filing documents in the name of a firm that had never hired it.
A Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member–Technical) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Anax Air Services Pvt. Ltd. and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.
Customs Act | No Time Bar For Shipping Bill Conversion Under Section 149: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Commissioner of customs, Nhava Sheva-II Vs. ADF Foods Ltd.
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 87408 of 2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department against ADF Foods Ltd., holding that exporters can seek conversion of shipping bills from one export incentive scheme to another even after several years, as long as the law does not prescribe any time limit.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) upheld the earlier relief granted to the exporter and confirmed that the Revenue could not reopen the issue once it had already been settled by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 86159 of 2015
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a penalty imposed on a licensed Customs House Agent (CHA), holding that merely claiming an exemption or classification as per the importer's instructions does not amount to misdeclaration or misconduct.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., a Customs Broker, and quashed the penalty of ₹1 lakh imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act stating that Customs Brokers cannot be punished for bona fide classification claims made on the basis of importer instructions and available records, particularly when the importer ultimately succeeds on merits.
Case Title: Nico Extrusions Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85057 of 2020, Customs Appeal No. 85085 of 2020
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside orders enhancing the value of scrap consignments merely on the basis of National Import Data Base (NIDB) data and a Directorate General of Valuation (DGoV) circular.
A Bench comprising Mr. S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) stated that the customs authorities could not discard the declared transaction value without strictly following Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and that mere comparison with NIDB data or reliance on the DGoV circular was insufficient to justify enhancement.
Services Performed Outside India Not Taxable Under RCM; No Import Of Services: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Intellect Design Arena Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40357 of 2022
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that services performed outside India are not liable to service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), even if payments are made by an Indian entity or involve group companies. The bench further opined that reimbursements to foreign subsidiaries do not constitute “import of services” in the absence of any service rendered by the assessee.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that when services are performed outside India, even if the payment is made by an Indian entity or the contract involves group companies, the services are not taxable in India.
Case Title: M/s. GE T&D India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40763 of 2018
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the captive exemption under Notification 67/95-CE remains available even if the final product is partly cleared on duty payment and partly under exemption.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that captive exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE is available to the relays captively used in the manufacture of control panels cleared on payment of duty, under Notification No. 12/2012-CE.
Case Title: M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.41180 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that while computing the amount of CENVAT credit to be reversed under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, only credit pertaining to common input services is required to be considered.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether cenvat credit of input services exclusively used for a dutiable product should be taken or the total cenvat credit of only common input service should be taken for the purpose of calculating the cenvat credit for reversal in terms of Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Central Excise | Packaged Drinking Water Cannot Be Assessed On MRP Basis U/S 4A: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Sree Gokulam Food and Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 41775 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that packaged drinking water is not liable to be assessed on MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act unless it is specifically covered by a statutory notification.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether packaged drinking water is to be assessed on MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Mumbai Grants Major Relief To Capgemini; Holds IT/ITES Services Eligible For CENVAT Credit
Case Title: Capgemini Technology Services India Limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Mumbai East Commissionerate
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 86740 of 2022
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has partly allowed an appeal filed by Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., holding that most of the input services used in provision of Information Technology/Information Technology Enabled Services output services qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The Bench comprising Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban noted that Capgemini is engaged in providing IT and IT enabled services and avails CENVAT credit on input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Case Title: Drive India Enterprises Solutions Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85417 of 2022
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed an appeal filed by Drive India Enterprises Solutions Ltd., setting aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) which had rejected a refund of excess countervailing duty (CVD) paid on imported mobile handsets.
A Bench comprising Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban held that once the Bills of Entry were reassessed and amended by the proper officer under Section 17 read with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the statutory requirement for claiming refund under Section 27 stood fully satisfied.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Case Number: SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 10521 of 2019-DB
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Reliance Industries Ltd. is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on insurance services on a proportionate basis for the period on or after 01.07.2003, when Business Auxiliary Service became taxable.
Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) and Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) examined whether Cenvat credit is admissible on insurance services received during the period when output service (i.e. Business Auxiliary Service) was out of the tax net.
Case Title: M/s Embellishment v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70208 of 2021
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that in the absence of any documentary break-up between service receipts and retail sale of goods, the entire receipts of the Lakme Franchise beauty salon are liable to service tax.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) stated that no Notes on Accounts, which would have been part of the audited balance sheet/ profit and loss account, showing the proceeds from the sale of goods have been produced during the entire proceedings. In profit and loss account the receipts are shown under the head “Receipts from Beauty Salon”, No break up is available. In absence of any assumption the authorities have rightly presumed that the entire receipts are in respect of provision of services.
Case Title: M/s Bhagwati Products ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Pre.), Noida
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 70604 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed appeals thereby upholding the Customs Department's decision rejecting the company's applications for a private warehousing licence and permission to carry out manufacturing operations under the Customs Act, 1962.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava was hearing the appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Noida, which had denied licences sought under Section 58 (private warehouse) read with the Private Warehousing Licensing Regulations, 2016 (PWLR), along with permission under Section 65 for manufacture and other operations.
Case Title: M/s. Neelamber Catters Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 75161 of 2024
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demands and denial of CENVAT credit raised holding that the issues were already settled in the assessee's favour in an earlier decision.
A Bench comprising Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal challenging the appellate order which had upheld service tax demands of ₹2.84 lakh and reversal of CENVAT credit of ₹1.44 lakh. The demand related to alleged service tax liability under reverse charge on manpower supply services and on remuneration paid to a director, along with consequent denial of CENVAT credit.
Case Detail: Orchid Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun
The Delhi Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Dietary Supplements were not food products, not pharmaceuticals, hence not eligible for area-based excise exemption.
A Bench comprising Smt. Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Shri. P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal filed by Pharmaceutical Company by upholding demand of ₹1.63 crore duty with interest as well as penalty equal to duty on the Company and personal penalty on Plant Head.
Case Title: Anil Kumar, Proprietor of Gajraj Hosiery Factory v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 60100 of 2018
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that imported ponchos are correctly reclassified under CTH 6102 as capes, rejecting the assessee's claim of them being scarves.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) opined that when the expert has given a report on the impugned goods, the same cannot be brushed aside without any substantial evidence to counter the same.
Filing Appeal Before Wrong Appellate Authority No Ground For Condonation: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title: M/s Ganga Telecom v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70660 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the filing of an appeal before the wrong appellate authority does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) opined that the assessee had been duly informed about the jurisdiction in which the appeal was to be filed, and therefore, there could be no error in this regard. The claim of the assessee that the right appeal should not be effected for his own mistakes, and such arguments are not admissible for this reason.
Case Detail: Payal Synthetics Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that export restrictions on garnet, whether found along beaches or inland places without involving canalising agency i.e. Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL) was banned.
In a recent ruling, the coram of Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) referred to a 2020 Circular issued by the Department of Atomic Energy to state that DGFT imposed restriction through a Notification dealt with sensitive materials seen from the perspective of national security and canalized exports through designated agencies only.
Case Title: M/s OSC Export Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 141 of 2012
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that revenue cannot reclassify input services or deny CENVAT credit at the stage of sanctioning a refund, without first challenging the assessment or invoking Rule 14 of the CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit Rules, 2004.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) opined that it is not open for the Revenue to decide the classification of input service or to decide the eligibility of such input service at the time of sanctioning the refund.
Case Title: M/s Cinepolis India Private Limited Vs. Additional Director General (Adjudication) Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Adjudication Cell)
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 50804 of 2021
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside a service tax demand of over ₹18.84 crore against assessee, holding that the sale of food and beverages such as popcorn, snacks and soft drinks at cinema counters amounts to sale of goods and does not involve any element of “service” under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao was hearing an appeal filed by M/s Cinepolis India Private Limited against an order passed by the Additional Director General of Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), which had confirmed service tax demand, interest and penalty by treating the sale of food and drinks inside multiplexes as a “declared service” under Section 66E of the Finance Act.
Case Title: M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70718 of 2021
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when the assessee has regularly disclosed CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit in ST-3 returns and furnished complete details while filing refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) stated that it is also evident from the format of the return date appellant was only required to declare the total credit taken during the period of return under various heads, without detailing credit taken against specific service or the invoices. Even otherwise, when these invoices, all the documents were submitted alongwith the refund claim under Rule 5, authorities should have worked out and made the demand rather than waiting for another three years.
Case Title: M/s. Indian Oil Petronas v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40128 of 2023
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that when the availment of CENVAT credit is duly disclosed in statutory ER-1 returns and the assessee has regularly paid excise duty, allegations of suppression within the intent to evade duty cannot be sustained.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that when the payment of duty remains undenied, and there is also no denial of the returns being filed by the assessee regularly, there cannot be any scope to allege suppression, that too with intent to evade duty, which could be alleged against the assessee.
Case Title: M/s S. Chatterjee & Sons (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.75962 of 2017
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that works contract service provided to Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) for transmission or distribution of electricity is not liable to service tax.
Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) examined whether the works contract service provided by the assessee to Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) for transmission or distribution of electricity is liable to service tax or not.
Case Title: M/s. Agni Steels Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 41254 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that remuneration paid to whole-time directors does not constitute a taxable service. Consequently, service tax under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) is not leviable.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that the remuneration paid to the Directors constitutes “salary” under an employer–employee relationship and is therefore not exigible to service tax.
No Service Tax Payable On Laying Of Cables Under Or Alongside Roads: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title: M/s. Precision Trenchless Laying Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax-II
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 76555 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that consideration received for laying of underground telecom/optical fibre cables under or alongside roads is not liable to service tax.
Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order under these specific categories is not liable to Service Tax, as all the amounts received by the assessee pertain to laying of cables under or alongside roads, which is not leviable to Service Tax as clarified by C.B.E.C. vide Circular No. 123/5/2010‑TRU.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Limited
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40648 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that once benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures (HBP) are granted by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), the same cannot be nullified by Customs through Notifications or Circulars issued under the Customs Act, 1962.
Ajayan T.V (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that if the Central Government in its wisdom introduces a beneficial scheme or provision under the FTDR Act, the benefit of such legislation are to be made available by another Department of Central Government, namely the Customs Department, for which purpose Notifications and Circulars are issued under the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Name: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), in a matter involving similarity of Muscle Relaxant sold domestically vis-à-vis exported by a Pharma major and benefit concessional duty thereof, has remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, cleared/sold multiple products in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) at concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated March 31,2003. As an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) can clear goods in DTA upto 50% of Free-On-Board (FOB) value of their physical exports i.e. a post-export entitlement.
Case Detail: Charotar Gas Sahkari Mandali Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Tax-Vadodara
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 12621 of 2019- DB
The Ahmedabad Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the demand of service tax by treating payment of Rs. 60 lakhs to Vallabh Vidhyanagar Municipal Corporation as rent arrears and not consideration for tolerating/refraining from an act.
The Bench comprising, Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) examined whether Rs. 60 lakhs paid to Municipal Administration of Vallabh Vidhyanagar i.e. Vallabh Vidhyanagar Nagar Palika was 'Consideration' towards tolerating an act or outstanding dues towards Rent. They clarified that once the recipient Nagar Palika had treated the amount as 'Rent' on which they also paid service tax, service tax could not be paid on the said amount again on reverse charge basis under the category of Declared Service.
Profit From Securitisation/Sell-Down Of Loan Receivables Not Taxable As Service: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd.
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40272 of 2022
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that profit earned from securitisation or sell-down of loan receivables, including upfront fees and excess spread income, being in the nature of income arising from the sale of receivables, is not exigible to service tax.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that there is no element of service in respect of the incomes received in the form of upfront fee and Excess Spread Income on Sell down, which are essentially income generated through sale of future receivables, and service tax cannot be demanded on the same.
Case Title: M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42240 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that cutting and slitting of HR-CR coils does not amount to manufacture and therefore, payment of duty on such non-excisable activity cannot create a legal fiction to treat it as excisable. The bench further held that CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit availed in respect of such activity is inadmissible, even if duty was paid.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that if there is no manufacturing activity, the question of availment of input credit does not arise. Here, no manufacturing activity existed at all during 2010–2015. Therefore, the HR/CR coils fail the very existential requirement of input under Rule 2(k). The Payment of duty on non-manufactured goods cannot legitimise the credit.
Case Title: M/s. RN Chidakashi Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, (Imports)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40655 of 2023
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the AI-powered MIKO-3 smart robot performs the essential function of Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Machines and cannot be classified as an electronic toy merely because it offers learning or entertainment features.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) observed that the Revenue has not discharged its burden of disproving the classification declared by the Assessee, and also not established with evidence as to its attempt to re-classify the goods in question as “electronic toys” alone.
Case Title: M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal Nos. 40785 and 40786 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that excess duty paid on PCMX (Para-Chloro-Meta-Xylenol) used for manufacturing Dettol products is refundable, as the prices of products were controlled by the Government. The bench opined that under such circumstances, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that when prices are controlled by the government, the manufacturers cannot charge any amount over the fixed price determined by the government. Consequently, any excess duty determined to be in excess consequent to finalisation of provisional assessment cannot be treated as having passed on the duty burden to another person, and the question of unjust enrichment does not arise.
Case Title: M/s. Sandor Medicaids Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 87321 of 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that I-STAT blood gas cartridges are accessories used solely with the I-STAT analyser and cannot be classified independent diagnostic reagents. Consequently, the cartridges follow the classification of the analyser, the differential duty is not payable.
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) held that since the glucometer strips have the same function of the Cartridges that are used in the I STAT analyser, accordingly the products are rightly classifiable under CTH 9027.
Case Title: M/s Proffer IT Consultancy Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (ACC Import)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51783 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that handheld barcode scanners, whose principal function is scanning, do not become smartphones merely because they have ancillary mobile features. The bench further stated that these scanners are entitled to exemption from Basic Customs Duty.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that in the documents on record in the form of brochures, invoices, packing list etc., the imported goods are described as a Handheld Scanners. They are known as such to trade. Hence, there is no reason to hold that the product is smart phone merely because the product has an ancillary function of being used a smart phone.
Case Title: M/s Muchipara Consumers Co-Operative Stores Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51577 of 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that confiscated/seized cigarettes which do not comply with mandatory packaging, labelling and legal metrology requirements cannot be released for home consumption and therefore could not have been validly auctioned. Since the auction is vitiated, forfeiture of the security deposit is unsustainable.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that the auction notice may have required the assessee to perform certain acts but when the mandatory condition specified in the Rules and the Circular are not satisfied on the cigarettes packets that have been confiscated, the cigarette packets cannot be released in favour of the assessee and have to be destroyed.