CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that Mandap Keeper Services by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation are non-taxable, covered under the negative list, and not support services.
CESTAT Kolkata grants Vedanta Ltd. 12% interest for a 15-year delay in export duty refund due to inaction by Kolkata Customs. Decision aligns with Section 27A of the Customs Act.
In the order above mentioned CESTAT allowed appeal of the assessee and held that that closure letter was already issued by the authority.
CESTAT Chennai held that duty demand due to non-fulfilment of export obligation justified as department empower to recover escaped duty when post importation conditions are not fulfilled. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that amendment of bill of entry under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for claiming benefit of duty exemption certificate received after clearance of goods allowed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that benefit of exemption from additional duty of customs i.e. benefit of notification no. 43/2002-Cus dated 19.04.2002 available on import of High Speed Diesel even if they are working under DEEC Scheme.
The alleged misdeclaration in the year of manufacture of the machinery to be imported by the appellant to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade ( DGFT ) did not fall within the purview of Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT Bangalore held that imported coco beans which didn’t satisfied the quality standards were permitted to re-export and accordingly, redemption fine and penalty imposed on the same reduced.
CESTAT Chennai held that order suspending CHA License set aside since proof regarding violation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 [CBLR] not available. Thus allegation not proved and hence CHA License restored.
Assessee was working under Notification No.56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 which provides for exemption from the duty of excise to specified goods cleared from industrial units in the State of Jammu & Kashmir to the extent of duty paid in cash by way of a refund mechanism, for a period of ten years from the date of publication of the notification or from the date of commencement of commercial production, whichever is later. During the scrutiny of ER-1 Returns
