#CESTAT Jurisprudence

CESTAT Chennai rules that the extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 for service tax demands cannot be invoked without concrete evidence of wilful suppression, fraud, or intent to evade tax. The ruling sets a precedent that mere non-filing or interpretational disputes do not justify extended limitation periods, impacting taxpayers facing retrospective demands.

CESTAT Bangalore rules that real estate transactions on principal-to-principal basis are not taxable as 'Real Estate Agent Services' and works contract valuation must exclude goods value under Rule 2A(i) of Service Tax Rules.

CESTAT Chandigarh holds that Special Economic Zone units are not bound by the one-year limitation period in Finance Act notifications for service tax refunds, as their entitlement arises from statutory exemption provisions under the SEZ Act. This clarifies that SEZ-specific refund rights operate independently of general time bars, benefiting exporters and SEZ-based service recipients with delayed claims.

CESTAT Chandigarh rules that a Pre-Shipment Inspection Certificate issued by an unauthorized agency does not automatically classify imported goods as 'prohibited' under Section 111(d), provided a subsequent DGFT-approved post-shipment inspection verifies safety and regulatory compliance. This shields importers from confiscation where goods are legally sound but administratively misdocumented, reinforcing that procedural flaws cannot override substantive safety verification.