CESTAT Mumbai held that in either of the three options given in sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, there is no provisions that if the assessee does not opt any of the option at a particular time, then option of payment of 5% will automatically be applied. Accordingly, demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that higher redemption fine and penalty imposable as appellant is a repeated offender and is violating the Minimum Import Price (MIP) condition prescribed by DGFT frequently.
Held that the importer is allowed to choose the more beneficial provision and cannot be forced to opt for / follow the non-beneficial provision. Accordingly, the goods in question Peas [Pisum Sativum] was present both in Sl No.20 and Sl No.20A of the basic Notification No.50/2017 Cus dated 30.6.2017 and hence assessee eligible to avail benefit of NIL rate of BCD.
Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Ltd. prevails against Central Excise & ST in CESTAT Chandigarh. Detailed analysis of duty demand, penalties, and key legal arguments.
CESTAT Kolkata upheld the imposition of excise duty on coal clearances from sister units. However, the Show Cause Notice was challenged on the grounds of limitation.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the goods i.e. ‘frequency converter’ is rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8504 and not under Chapter Heading 9032.
CESTAT Mumbai held that section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 may be invoked only upon material particulars being misdeclared and this detriment is in addition to duty liability determined under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT Mumbai held that unless a Trade Mark/ Brand Name is registered in the name of the assessee, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption notification.
CESTAT Kolkata held that 100% EOU unit clearing Spent Sulphuric Acid to fertilizer companies is entitled to take benefit of notification no. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand to be unsustainable as even though belatedly the appellant has availed option provided under rule 6 and reversed the relevant cenvat credit along with interest. Concluded that even post-clearance compliance of stipulations precluded denial of an entitlement available otherwise.
