#CESTAT appeal

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.

CESTAT Chennai rules that 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) destroying duty-free inputs under FTP Para 6.15 are not liable for Customs or Excise duty, even pre-2015. The Tribunal held the 2015 amendments clarificatory and retrospective, shielding EOUs from duty demands, interest, and penalties for obsolete inputs destroyed with due intimation to authorities.

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, affirmed the classification of Electronic Control Units for Electronic Power Steering (EPS-ECU) and related parts under CTH 8708 94 00, dismissing appeals challenging differential duty demands. The ruling reinforces binding precedent on tariff classification under the General Interpretative Rules, impacting automotive manufacturers and importers.

CESTAT Kolkata holds that Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) issued by DGFT are binding and conclusive evidence of export obligation fulfilment under FTP schemes. The ruling sets aside a ₹14.97 crore customs demand, reinforcing legal certainty for exporters and importers relying on DGFT authorisations.

CESTAT Kolkata ruled that when statutory documents are unavailable due to passage of time, actual production records submitted by the assessee hold legal precedence. The Tribunal set aside an excise duty demand of ₹73.1 lakh, reinforcing that tax authorities cannot rely on procedural lapses caused by delay to deny consequential relief to manufacturers.

CESTAT ruled that reversing CENVAT credit proportionately on inputs used for exempted electricity sales does not amount to non-availment under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal set aside demands totaling ₹7.13 crore, clarifying that separate record-keeping is not mandatory if credit reversal is already effected, offering relief to manufacturers with captive power plants.

CESTAT rules that insurance, professional fees for forex hedging, and HR training services qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, entitling manufacturers to credit. The decision clarifies the scope of 'input service' for indirect tax credit eligibility, impacting manufacturers availing such services.

CESTAT ruled that manufacturers who do not avail CENVAT credit on inputs used for non-excisable goods are not liable to pay 5-6% of their value under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The decision clarifies that non-excisable goods do not qualify as 'exempted goods' unless explicitly defined, offering relief to manufacturers dealing with by-products.

CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) test reports alone are adequate for determining customs tariff classification, remanding the case for re-determination. The decision underscores that importers cannot be denied duty exemptions solely due to procedural lapses in sharing test reports if the substantive findings are conclusive.