BPCL challenges the Central Excise classification of propylene, seeking relief against the differential duty imposed by the authorities.
CESTAT Mumbai sets aside service tax demand against Konkan Railway for excess Cenvat credit adjustment due to unutilized credit under CGST Act, 2017.
CESTAT Delhi sets aside the order on sole reason that show cause notice doesn’t even state the allegations in respect of violation of four regulations under CBLR 2013 by customs broker. Thus, order quashed as notice is absolutely vague.
The Commissioner holding that the appellant had resorted to deliberate misdeclaration and utilised the carnet documents to clear the vehicle without payment of duty, held that the car was liable for confiscation u/s. 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that imposition of penalty on allegation of foreign origin gold set aside as department failed to examine the documents nor have given any specific findings on the defence of the assessee. Thus, order set aside and matter remanded back.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the payment of Management Fee and the License Fee not being relatable to the imported goods and condition precedent to the sale of imported goods are therefore not includible in the transaction value.
Since there was no infirmity on the behalf of the investigation agencies in invoking confiscation under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of seven gold bars bearing foreign markings out of the ten bars seized.
CESTAT Kolkata held that valid specific license required for import of old and used worn clothing articles. Accordingly, redemption fine @10% and penalty @5% imposed for failure to comply with licensing requirement.
CESTAT Kolkata held that keeping in view the common parlance usage of material as bed sheets and the same can be sold in market as bed sheet, the goods are classified under Customs Tariff Heading 6304 and not under Customs Tariff Heading 54.07.
CESTAT Mumbai held that allegation of mis-declaration and duty demand thereon not sustained as department doesn’t challenged transaction value. Further, importer duly mentioned value of all the imported goods in the invoice. Hence, duty demand not sustained.
