Tribunal cannot classify product under a totally new heading which not relied on by Department or assessee in adjudication - Precision Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd V CCE - 2016-TIOL-28-SC-CX.

 Cost of bullet proofing done on Jeeps by job worker after clearance from factory need not be added to transaction value of manufacturer - CCE V Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd - 2016-TIOL-29-SC-CX.

 Issue whether Section 4 of Central Excise Act as substituted from 01.07.2000 and definition of transaction value in clause (d) of Sub section (3) of Section 4 are subject to Section 3 has been referred to larger bench - CCE V Grasim Industries - 2016-TIOL-38-SC-CX-LB.

 Conflict between a statutory provision and standing order is to be resolved in favour of statute on first principles of interpretation - UOI V Mohanlal - 2016 333 ELT 209 (S.C.)

 Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously. In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases. - Air Customs Officer, IGI, New Delhi V Pramod Kumar Dhamija – 2016 333 E.L.T. 204 S.C

 There is nothing to prevent using medicated soap for toilet purposes but it is not what the soap is intended for. Clearly, the product in dispute is classifiable under CET Heading 3401.11 which is the more appropriate CET Heading rather than the residuary CET Heading 3401.19 - V V F Ltd V CCE - 2016 TIOL 27 SC CX.

 Service tax on senior advocates stayed - Delhi Highcourt Bar Association V UOI - TS 131 HC 2016 DEL ST.

 There is no provision under the Customs Act, 1962 under which Customs authorities can withhold a passport. Passports are governed by the Passports Act, 1967. – Shahid Ali V Commr. of Cus., Airport & Administration - 2016 334 E.L.T. 327 Cal.

 Merely filing of appeal before High Court against Tribunal order is no ground for denying refund arising consequent to such order by transferring the case to call book, unless stay is obtained from High Court against the Tribunal order. – Larsen and Toubro Ltd. V UOI – 2016 334 E.L.T. 268 GUJ.

 Where a show cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, the writ Court can interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice. – Madura Coats Ltd. Vs DCCE – 2016 TIOL 690 HC MAD CX.

 Payment of Service Tax under Works Contract Service on full value by availing input credit held to be permissible as there was no revenue loss. – Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & service Tax, Vapi V M/s S V Jiwani – 2016 TIOL 503 HC MUM ST.

 When assessee has paid entire service tax as per their classification, reclassification of same service under different category does not warrant pre-deposit of 7.5% - Bharat Hotels Ltd V CCE - 2016 41 STR 791 (Del.).

 Non payment of 50% of tax declared under VCES before due date makes assessee ineligible to avail the scheme and since scheme has fixed time frame, High Court does not have power to extend the time - CST Vs. Parijat Vyappar Pvt Ltd - 2016 41 STR 809 (Cal.).

 When assessee has made payment of service tax under VCES through cheque, date of presentation of cheque is to be deemed as date on which service tax has been paid subject to realisation - Disha Securities and Manpower Pvt Ltd V Asst. Commr of Service Tax 2016-TIOL-714-HC-DEL-ST714-HC-DEL-ST FREE.

 Non registration as Input Service Distributor prior to availment and distribution of credit is a curable procedural irregularity - CCE Vs. Dashion Ltd 2016 41 STR 884 (Guj.)

 In absence of any specific provisions under the Customs Act, the bank account of the defaulter cannot be frozen or attached - Mineral Metal Centre V DGCEI - 2016 333 ELT 267 (Cal.).

 When refund claim is not in respect of duty but amount paid in excess of duty, then the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, regarding time limit of one year is not applicable - Consolidated Metal Finishing Pvt Ltd V Commr of Customs - 2016 TIOL 715 HC MAD CUS.

 Writ Petition is not maintainable for recovery of demurrage from importer by Container Freight Station - APM Terminals India Pvt Ltd V Asst Commr of Customs - 2016 TIOL 693 HC MAD CUS.

 Interest is payable on delayed refund of SAD as provisions of Section 3 (8) of Customs Tariff Act read with Sections 27 and 27A of Customs Act would apply to refund of SAD - Principal Commr. Of Customs Vs. Riso India PVt Ltd.

 High Court issues strictures to Department to follow binding precedents - Larsen and Toubro Ltd V UOi - TS-138-HC-2016 BOM-EXC.