CESTAT Chennai held that refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied merely due to missing original documents or procedural deficiencies when the importer establishes payment of SAD, VAT/CST, and non-passing of credit. The Tribunal directed grant of refund with interest.
CESTAT ruled that labour deployment and use of machinery under the lease arrangement were inseparable from plantation operations. In the absence of independent consideration, separate tax demands were unsustainable.
The Bangalore CESTAT set aside the penalty imposed under the CBLR after finding no admissible evidence that the Customs Broker had neglected its due diligence obligations. The Tribunal held that mere occurrence of illegal export could not establish regulatory violations without supporting proof.
Karthik Papers Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer (CESTAT Delhi) The appeal was filed by Shree Karthik Papers Limited against the portion of the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, which restored the assessment on a turnover of ₹1,51,28,219 as inter-State sales and restored penalty of ₹25,64,365. […]
P P Jewellers & Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, examined multiple appeals challenging an order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur. The Commissioner had confiscated seized silver jewellery, confirmed a customs duty demand of ₹1,44,04,165 along […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that Cenvat Credit cannot be retained when based on invoices issued by fake or non-existent suppliers. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to verify supplier identity as required under Rule 7(2).
The Tribunal held that penalties for abetment could not survive when the actual importer was neither identified nor proceeded against. The absence of a principal offender undermined the charge under Section 112(a).
The Tribunal held that while failures in supervision and due diligence were established, there was no conclusive proof of conscious involvement in fraudulent drawback exports. It upheld forfeiture of security deposit without revoking the licence.
The Tribunal held that the department could not reject a genuine Load Port Chartered Engineer’s Certificate in favour of a local report lacking supporting details. The declared transaction value was restored for customs assessment.
The Tribunal classified AKD Wax under Heading 34049090 based on test reports and HSN notes. However, it held that prolonged departmental acceptance of an earlier classification defeated allegations of suppression.
