CESTAT Kolkata held that activity undertaken by the appellant as calibration tests and upgradation/configuration of the appliances according to the requirements/specifications of the customers, does not amount to manufacture as no new product came into existence.
In a recent case, CESTAT Delhi ruled that imported earphones are not considered parts of cellular mobile phones and qualify as accessories, allowing them customs duty exemption.
CESTAT Chandigarh remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh re-consideration as cross-examination to key witnesses was not allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that buying and selling space on ships does not amount to rendering a service and any profit or income earned through such transactions would not be leviable to service tax.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the interest of justice would be properly served if the case goes back to the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate the case afresh as not allowing the cross-examination of key witnesses vitiates the proceedings.
CESTAT Allahabad held that CENVAT Credit of materials used for fabrication work of machines which are capital goods is duly available in terms of rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the proprietorship firm without even recording the statement of the proprietor of the firm is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Chennai held that boiler in unassembled form is removed in several lots on different dates doesn’t mean that parts only and not the whole boiler is cleared from factory. The parts are to be classified as complete machine under 8402.10. Hence, exemption vide Sl.No.84 of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 as amended duly available.
CESTAT Chennai allowed the assessee’s appeal, stating that the demand of duty with interest was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal held that the SCN issued after the appeal stage lacked validity and that the demand of duty and interest was not justified. The department’s appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT Chennai acknowledged the procedural violation by the appellant but recognized that the goods underwent 100% examination, revealing no banned substances. Considering this and the appellant’s cost and delay in the clearance process, the CESTAT Chennai found the imposed redemption fine and penalties excessive. Therefore, the CESTAT Chennai reduced the redemption fine to INR 1,00,000 and the penalty to INR 50,000.
