CESTAT Chennai grants approval for the amendment of shipping bills in the case of Regin Exports. The rejection of the request by the authorities is set aside, citing the absence of examination as an insufficient reason for denial.
CESTAT Chennai allows the appeal by VNMS Ayyachamy Nadar & Bros against the order of the Commissioner of Customs. The revocation of the CHA license is set aside, and a partial forfeiture of the security deposit is upheld.
The CESTAT Hyderabad quashes the demand of service tax on payment of insurance premium on a marine cargo policy due to lack of clarity in the show cause notice issued to EID Parry (India) Ltd.
CESTAT Chennai upheld the eligibility of “External Hard Disc Drives” for exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The classification as per the Central Excise Tariff Act was crucial in determining the benefit.
CESTAT Mumbai upheld the quashing of customs duty liability on the import of a barge, Aqua Float 300′, citing irregular value addition of equipment on board. The appeal focused on whether equipment should be charged separately, but the tribunal rejected the claim.
Tribunal grants relief to small cable TV operator for Service Tax non-payment. M/s SIFY already paid tax. Appellant’s compliance efforts noted. Penalties set aside.
Understand CESTAT’s decision in Panoli Enviro Technology Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST that effluent transportation doesn’t qualify as ‘goods’ under the Goods Transport Agency service, hence is not liable to Service Tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that a sanctioned refund claim can be adjusted to any dues of excise duty as per Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. The case involves the appropriation of excess Cenvat credit and penalty amounts from the refund.
CESTAT Ahmedabad upholds the addition of service tax on services provided to shipping lines, classifying them under the category of steamer agent as per Section 65(100) of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad reduces the bank guarantee for provisional release of imported dry dates to Rs. 18 lakhs, citing the proportionate value of the goods. The appellant, K.L. International, had sought reconsideration of the original order, arguing that the goods were perishable edible goods and not restricted or prohibited.
