Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 09 – June 15, 2025
HIGH COURTS
Kerala HC
Case Title: M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19159 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has directed the customs department to dispose of seized buffalo meat consignments within one month due to perishability.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was addressing the issue pertaining to the seizure of the consignments of buffalo meat, which were proposed to be exported to a foreign country. On examination, it was found that there was misdeclaration by the consignor, and it contained certain items which were prohibited to be exported.
Sikkim HC
Assessee Entitled To Refund Of Unutilized ITC Claimed On Closure Of Business: Sikkim High Court
Case Title: SICPA India Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: WP(C) No.54 of 2023
The Sikkim High Court stated that the assessee is entitled to the refund of unutilized ITC claimed on the closure of business.
The Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai was addressing the issue of whether the refund of ITC under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act is only limited to companies carved out under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act or does every registered company have a right to refund of ITC in case of discontinuance of business.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: Evergreen Shipping Agency India Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 51117 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that knowledge and intention must be there to impose penalty under Section 114AA of Customs Act.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “Knowledge and intention is sine qua non for imposing penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act. The department has not been able to establish knowledge on part of the assessee or intention on the part of the assessee to help the exporter in obtaining the alleged undue export advantage. In such circumstances, penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act cannot be imposed upon the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s. Artifacts India v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi- II
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.55777 OF 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that bank charges paid to foreign banks are not liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has stated that “there is direct nexus of the buyer with the Foreign Bank, and it is held that when the provider of service i.e. ‘the Foreign Bank’ and recipient of service i.e. ‘the Buyer’ are both located outside India, there is no question of taxing such service in India as the said service has been provided outside the taxable territory and outside the purview of Section 66B the charging section for levy of service tax.”
Royalty Paid For Exclusive Trademark License Is Not Taxable As A Service: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Bajaj Resources Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Udaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53227 of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that royalty paid for exclusive trademark license is not taxable as service.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the assessee was restrained to use the said trademark during the said period in any territory of the world and as such the transaction was a transaction of ‘Deemed Sale’ inviting no service tax liability. Hence, the amount paid by the assessee for which refund has been claimed was the amount not towards the duty but was an amount wrongly deposited by the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s Hewlett Packard Sales Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import) Commissionerate
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50203 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that re-determination value of CDs imported by HP India invalid without rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 Customs Valuation Rules 2007.
The bench stated that unless the proper officer rejects the transaction value under Rule 12, the valuation has to be based on transaction value as per Rule 3 with some additions, if necessary, as per Rule 10.
Assessee Liable To Pay Redemption Fine For Seized Goods Missing From Their Custody: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive)-New Delhi V. M/S Akay Cones Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2008
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that assessee liable to pay redemption fine for seized goods missing from their custody.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether when the goods were seized handed over the assessee for safe custody and they went missing while in their custody, whether such goods can be confiscated or not.
