CESTAT Delhi held that responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client. Thus, customs broker cannot be held responsible if client moves to new premises and doesn’t inform authorities.
CESTAT Delhi held that FOB value is the transaction value and customs officer has no right to interfere/ modify the FOB value of the goods. Thus, appeal of exporter’s allowed and order set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that Amendment Notification no. 36/2021-Customs dated 19.07.2021 cannot be said to be retrospective in nature. Accordingly, orders are liable to be set aside and all the appeals are allowed.
CESTAT Mumbai overturns refund rejection for Syntel Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., allowing SEZ input credit for Business Support Services under SEZ Rules.
CESTAT Allahabad remands appeal in Krishna Road Carrier case, ruling that pre-deposit via DRC-03 before 28.10.22 is valid under new CBIC clarifications.
Tata Asset Management Ltd wins appeal against CGST demand for service tax on overseas advisory services. Tribunal affirms export status under Service Tax Rules.
CESTAT Mumbai sets aside tax demand against Shipping Corporation of India, questioning the legal basis of the show cause notice and order validity.
CESTAT Chandigarh rules that Supreme Court clarifications do not justify invoking the extended limitation period in service tax disputes. Key case insights inside.
Assessee was unable to produce list of documents for the gold, leading to its seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The gold was later inventoried and seized at the Customs House, and assessee recorded a voluntary statement.
Analysis of Getz Pharma Vs Commissioner of Service Tax case on refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. CESTAT Mumbai remands matter for reconsideration.
