Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Weekly Flashback for the period 16 to 22 February 2025.
Cross Objections Filing Date Though Filed In Incorrect Form To Be Taken Into Account For Considering Limitation: CESTAT
Case Title: M/S.Tokai Rubber Auto Parts India Pvt.Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise
The Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the date of filing the cross objections (which is not the correct Form) has to be taken into account while considering the issue of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) took a pedantic approach by depriving appellant’s right to appeal citing limitation.
Customs Dept. Can’t Deny Customs Duty Exemption Under Notifications Governing Advance Licensing Scheme: CESTAT
Case Title: Svam Toyal Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Customs authorities cannot deny the benefit of Customs duty exemption under the notifications governing the Advance Licensing Scheme.
The bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the licensing authority viz. DGFT has accepted the fulfilment of export obligation and issued 7 Export Obligation Discharge Certificates to the appellant. The 8th was pending at the time of hearing. These EODCs discharge the appellants from any further export obligation. That being the position, the Customs authorities cannot deny the benefit of Customs duty exemption under the notifications governing the Advance Licensing Scheme.
Advisory Services Provided By Arvind Singh Mewar Is ‘Export Of Service’, Not Exigible To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: Arvind Singh Mewar Versus Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax
The Delhi Bench Of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the advisory services provided by Arvind Singh Mewar would be squarely covered as ‘export of service’ and is not eligible for service tax.
No Service Tax On Transportation Of Petroleum Products Without Consignment Notes: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Erode Lorry Owners Association Versus Commissioner of CGST & CE
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax payable on transportation of petroleum products without consignment notes by road.
The bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) and Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) has observed that the contract was for transportation of petroleum products on which service tax under GTA has been discharged by M/s. HPCL themselves. The nature and type of agreement between the two parties also service to indicate that there is no Supply of Tangible Goods involved in this matter.
Customs Dept Fails to Prove Allegations in Illegal Export Against CHA: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Innovative Cargo Services Versus Commissioner of Customs (Exports), New Delhi
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the customs department has failed to prove allegations in illegal export against Customs House Agent (CHA).
The bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that there is no evidence produced by the department to prove the allegations of lack due diligence on part of the CHA nor of abatement in impugned illegal exports. There is not even any evidence on record to prove that the appellant had derived any benefit out of alleged violation by the exporters or out of availment of ineligible drawback.
NIDB Data Can’t Be The Basis For Enhancement Of Value: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Seafox Impex Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that National Import Database (NIDB) cannot be the basis for enhancement of value.
The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that the burden still rests on the department to prove the said allegations. In case the burden is not discharged the statement of the appellant or the payment of differential duty being made by him will not be sufficient waiver on part of the appellant to contest the re-assessment.
