Topic
CESTAT Kolkata holds that Education Cess and SHE Cess credits cannot be transferred to the CENVAT credit account for excise duty payment, reinforcing strict segregation under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The Tribunal upheld the demand but waived interest and penalty, emphasizing compliance with Delhi HC precedent.
CESTAT Kolkata rules that contract date prior to 01.03.2015 qualifies for Service Tax exemption under Notification No. 25/2012, setting aside Rs. 23 lakh demand.
The CESTAT Kolkata rules that mere size reduction and segregation of iron ore through crushing and screening do not amount to manufacture under HSN Chapter Note 4, preserving the unconditional exemption for raw ores under Notification No. 12/2012-CE. This clarifies the boundary between mining activities and taxable production, directly impacting miners, contractors, and tax authorities handling ore-based supply chains.
CESTAT Kolkata rules that royalty deductions made by state authorities from contractors under Form M/N for mineral procurement do not trigger reverse charge liability under service tax law. This shields works contract sub-contractors from retrospective tax demands based solely on balance sheet entries, setting a critical precedent for mining and infrastructure contractors nationwide.
CESTAT Kolkata holds that 67% service tax abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST cannot be denied merely due to procedural lapses like non-claim in ST-3 returns. The ruling reinforces that substantive benefits under tax laws prevail over technical non-compliance, impacting construction and works contract service providers.
CESTAT Kolkata ruled that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act to establish the foreign origin of seized peas, leading to the quashing of confiscation and penalty. The judgment reinforces that confiscation under the Customs Act requires strict proof of foreign origin, not mere suspicion.
CESTAT Kolkata reaffirms that refunds of customs deposits made under a mistaken notion of liability attract 12% interest from the date of deposit to refund. The ruling underscores the government’s obligation to compensate importers for unlawful retention of funds, reinforcing judicial precedent on restitution under Section 27 of the Customs Act.