454 Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters.
CESTAT Chennai holds Circular 36/2010 cannot override Section 149 Customs Act; unchallenged conversion order binds revenue at drawback sanction stage.
The tribunal ruled that customs duty can only be recovered from the actual importer of goods, not from directors of companies that sold title documents on the high seas. This bars revenue from issuing joint several demands against high sea sellers' directors, protecting corporate officers from liability for obligations that legally belong solely to the importer.
CESTAT Kolkata set aside confiscation of unmarked gold seized from a domestic passenger, ruling revenue must first prove foreign origin before Section 123's reverse burden applies. The tribunal held that possession of unmarked gold on a domestic flight alone cannot trigger the smuggling presumption without foundational evidence of foreign source.
CESTAT held that airline cancellation fees are liquidated damages, not a separate service taxable under Section 66E(e) Finance Act 1994. The ruling exempts airlines from paying service tax on penal charges, affecting carriers and passengers.
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax paid under reverse charge after GST rollout is refundable under Section 142(3) CGST Act as existing law. It lets taxpayers claim refunds for such post-GST payments, clarifying the transitional provision’s scope.
The CESTAT set aside ₹42 crore of service tax demands on MP Online Ltd., holding that OIDAR tax applies only when the service provider owns the data. It also ruled that interest on fixed deposits and educational services remain exempt from service tax.
CESTAT Chennai held electronic records inadmissible under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act for non-compliance, quashing a ₹4.08 crore duty demand and ₹2 crore penalty, stressing procedural compliance essential for digital evidence in tax disputes.
CESTAT Kolkata held that statements cannot be admitted without examination in chief under Section 9D CEA, annulling a Rs 4.34 crore excise demand in a clandestine clearance case. The decision strengthens protections for taxpayers in excise proceedings.
CESTAT Chennai ruled that processed milk is an intermediate product, not an exempted final product, so Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules does not trigger credit reversal. The decision sets aside the tax demand on Lotte India, clarifying that captive consumption of processed milk in confectionery manufacture does not attract CENVAT credit liability.
CESTAT held that trading income and rent from residential property are not services under Section 65B(44) Finance Act 1994, and set aside a Rs 19,72,702 demand for FY 2013/14 to 2015/16, giving relief to traders and residential landlords wrongly taxed.
CESTAT held that adjusting a SAD refund against a sub-judice duty drawback demand is impermissible under Section 142 of the Customs Act, ordering repayment of ₹17,96,125 with interest under Section 11BB and stating that recovery must await adjudication.
The CESTAT Chennai bench held that the limitation period for a refund claim under Section 27(1B)(c) Customs Act starts from communication of the order, not its mere passage. This clarifies refund timing for importers and exporters after provisional assessments, preventing premature time-bar rejections.
CESTAT Allahabad held that accepting an enhanced customs value in writing does not waive the right to appeal under Section 128, Customs Act, 1962. It confirms that such acceptance does not invoke estoppel, safeguarding importers who may inadvertently acknowledge higher valuations during clearance.
CESTAT Bangalore ruled that the Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA), a member-based trade union, does not qualify as a 'manpower recruitment or supply agency' under the Finance Act, 1994, because the workers are members of the organisation rather than employees deployed through an intermediary service. The decision clarifies that the mutuality principle excludes such collective self-employment arrangements from service tax liability, impacting similar member-driven collectives and cooperatives.
A SEZ unit’s claim for service tax refund was allowed despite filing beyond the six-month limit, because the SEZ Act’s substantive exemption prevails over procedural time bars. This clarifies that revenue authorities cannot reject refunds solely on limitation grounds for SEZ entities. The ruling benefits all SEZ manufacturers seeking tax refunds for pre-2011 periods.
CESTAT ruled that a taxpayer may carry forward surplus service tax and set it off against liability in any later month or quarter, not just the immediate period prescribed by the revenue. This expands the relief available under Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, giving businesses greater cash-flow flexibility. The decision applies to all service-tax payers with excess tax payments.
CESTAT affirmed the importer’s classification of mixed polyester warp-knitted fabrics under tariff item 6005 9000 and upheld the 10 % concessional BCD, because the revenue could not produce technical evidence of mis-classification. The ruling shifts the evidential burden to customs authorities in similar classification disputes, benefiting textile importers.
The Tribunal confirmed that fees collected by STPI for certifying SOFTEX forms and issuing No Objection Certificates constitute a taxable business support service under the Finance Act, 1994. This makes such charges liable to service tax, affecting all software parks and entities seeking SOFTEX certification.
CESTAT Kolkata ruled that 12% interest on delayed customs refunds accrues from the expiry of three months after the refund application is filed, not from the re-assessment order date, affirming the higher statutory rate and clarifying the starting point for interest calculation under Section 27.
CESTAT ruled that a refund of service tax paid under a mistake of fact attracts interest at 12% per annum, superseding the earlier 6% rate. This higher rate applies to any taxpayer seeking restitution for erroneous service tax payments, enhancing compensation for delayed refunds. The decision sets a binding precedent for future service tax refund claims.
Customs officials must possess a reasonable belief before seizing goods, and the onus under Sec 123 cannot be shifted to the accused without proper justification. This ruling curtails arbitrary confiscation of gold and safeguards importers from unjust seizure.
CESTAT ruled that royalties for pre-installing Microsoft operating systems are not ‘IPR services’, rendering the service-tax demand invalid and time-barred because tax cannot be levied before 16 May 2008 or after the limitation period. The decision shields hardware manufacturers that bundle OS software.
CESTAT ruled that a bill containing the essential particulars prescribed under service tax law is sufficient to serve as a consignment note for Goods Transport Agency services. Consequently, the service tax demand and penalty imposed under the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside, relieving logistics providers of the tax liability.
CESTAT ruled that an appeal lodged with an incorrect customs office does not lapse under the Limitation Act, allowing the appellant to pursue the refund of duty paid under protest. This clarifies that procedural misdirection does not defeat a taxpayer’s right to challenge duty assessments.