Diagnostic centres entitled to the benefit of exemption for payment of customs duty under Notification No.64/88 dated 1.3.1988 - Bharat Diagnostic Centre vs Commr.of Customs - 2014 TIOL 86 SC CUS LB.

 All EPC/Turnkey cases to be heard by full bench of CESTAT headed by the President and decision to be given before 15.03.15 - IVRCL JV vs CCE - 2014 TIOL 83 SC ST.

 Bonafide confusion regarding taxability of activity is a reasonable cause under Section 80 and entitles assesee for waiver of penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 77 - CCE vs Busy Bee - 2014 TIOL 1763 HC MAD ST.

 Rejection of application for refund of TED vide letter without reasoned order not sustainable - Lupin Ltd vs UOI - 2014 TIOL 1802 HC MUM CX.

 Cenvat eligible on capital goods used for manufacture of exempt intermediate products - CCE vs Samsung India Electronics Limited - 2014 TIOL 1708 HC ALL CX.

 Penalty proceedings under Rule 96ZP (3) initiated after a period of five years from relevant date is not sustainable - CCE vs Sawan Mal Shibu Mal Steei Rolling Mills - 2014 TIOL 1769 HC P&H CX.

 CESTAT can extend stay beyond 365 days - Haldiram India Pvt Ltd vs CCE - 2014 TIOL 1965 CESTAT DEL LB.

 Valuation of ‘process rejection inputs’ at lower rate than purchase price does not warrant reversal of cenvat availed - Autoline vs CCE - 2014 TIOL 2003 CESTAT MUM.

 During the period prior to 01/07/12 the distribution of credit by Input Service Distributor among its manufacturing units need not be in proportion to their turnover - Dabur India Ltd vs CCE - 2014 TIOL 2113 CESTAT DEL.

 Department is liable to pay interest for not sanctioning service tax refund to SEZs within stipulated time - Reliance Industries Ltd vs CCE - 2014 TIOL 2096 CESTAT AHM.

 Refund claim filed by owner of flat of amount paid as service tax which is not actually liable to be paid is not bound by time bar under Sec 11B  - Jyotsana Patel vs CCE - 2014 TIOL 2048 CESTAT MUM.

 Deputing persons by overseas branch to subsidiary is not provision of manpower supply service - IBM India Private Ltd vs CCE - 2014-TIOL-1976-CESTAT-BANG.

 Service provided by sub-contractor is not liable to service tax opinion of Third Member in the case of Sunil Hi-tech Engineers reported in 2014-TIOL-541-CESTAT-MUM, is per incuriam - CCE vs Akruti Projects 2014-TIOL-1925-CESTAT-MUM.

 Credit of service tax paid on GTA is eligible on goods sold on FOR basis where destination is the place of removal - Ultra Tech Cement vs CCE - 2014 TIOL 1934 CESTAT DEL.

 POPS Rules, 2012 although prospective can be used to understand place of provision of service during period prior to its introduction - Wall Street Finance Ltd vs CST - 2014 TIOL 1958-\ CESTAT MUM.

 If R & D cess does not stand paid at the time of making book entry between associated enterprises, the same cannot be deducted under Notification No. 17/04-ST - Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Pvt Ltd vs CCE - 2014 TIOL 1893 CESTAT BANG.

 No service tax is payable on the value of interest received on bill discounting facility extended by the bank to its customers - UCO bank vs CST - 2014 TIOL 1902 CESTAT KOL.

 Since the assessment of duty liability has to be done by the Customs, notwithstanding the fact that the importer did not claim the benefit of exemption, the same should have been extended him - Commr of Customs vs PSL Ltd - 2014 TIOL 1937 CESTAT MUM.