Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 09 - June 15, 2025

HIGH COURTSKerala HCKerala High Court Directs Customs To Dispose Of Seized Buffalo Meat Consignments Within One Month Due To PerishabilityCase Title: M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19159 OF 2025The Kerala High Court has directed the customs department to dispose of seized buffalo meat consignments within one month due to perishability.The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was addressing the issue pertaining to the seizure of the consignments of buffalo meat, which were proposed to be exported to a foreign country. On examination, it was found that there was misdeclaration by the consignor, and it contained certain items which were prohibited to be exported.Sikkim HCAssessee Entitled To Refund Of Unutilized ITC Claimed On Closure Of Business: Sikkim High CourtCase Title: SICPA India Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and OthersCase Number: WP(C) No.54 of 2023The Sikkim High Court stated that the assessee is entitled to the refund of unutilized ITC claimed on the closure of business.The Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai was addressing the issue of whether the refund of ITC under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act is only limited to companies carved out under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act or does every registered company have a right to refund of ITC in case of discontinuance of business.TRIBUNALSKnowledge & Intention Must Be Present Before Imposing Penalty U/S 114AA Of Customs Act For Obtaining Undue Export Advantage: CESTATCase Title: Evergreen Shipping Agency India Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 51117 of 2022The 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.”Bank Charges Paid To Foreign Banks Are Not Liable To Service Tax Under Reverse Charge Mechanism: CESTATCase Title: M/s. Artifacts India v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi- IICase Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.55777 OF 2014The 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: CESTATCase Title: M/s. Bajaj Resources Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, UdaipurCase Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53227 of 2018The 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.”Re-Determining Value Of CDs Imported By HP India Is Invalid Without Rejection Of Transaction Value Under Customs Valuation Rules: CESTATCase Title: M/s Hewlett Packard Sales Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import) CommissionerateCase Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50203 OF 2021The 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...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 09 - June 15, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags