Goods even if there was any remote possibility of being found prohibited or restricted at the time of adjudication was there, could not be subjected to non release in terms of Section 110A, thus, the provisional release of 26 Gold Dore weighing 5 kg plus more, subject to certain conditions.
Read the full text of CESTAT Kolkata’s order on the Commissioner of Customs vs. Sawetri Trading Company case. Analysis reveals key factors influencing customs duty demand on Poppy Seeds.
Explore the Jyoti Sarup Mittal vs Commissioner of Central Tax case. Learn how works contracts, VAT prerequisites, and governmental exemptions impact service tax.
When a person, otherwise was qualified as a tour operator but provide only booking of accommodation service, then such a tour operator would be entitled to claim abatement under the Abatement Notifications as assessee-Make My Trip acted as a facilitator between hotel and customer for short-term accommodation service.
CESTAT Delhi in Sharma Steel Rolling Mills vs Commissioner held that No Penalty for Unrecorded Finished Goods in Factory without Evidence of Clandestine Removal and personal penalty on employee need not be imposed as he is acting under direction of his employer
Chandan Chatterjee vs Commissioner of Customs – CESTAT Kolkata ruling on attempted red sanders export, Customs Broker penalty set aside. Full analysis of the case.
The tribunal concluded that the Commissioner failed to present additional evidence beyond co-accused statements, mirroring the trial court’s findings. Emphasizing the principle of double jeopardy, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, granting victory to Abdul Razak.
CESTAT Mumbai held that witnesses relied upon by the central excise authorities are not acceptable evidence in the absence of cross-examination that was denied. Hence, matter alleging clandestine removal mainly resting upon certain statements is remanded back to enable cross-examination.
Rajeshwar Prasad Choudhari challenges service tax demand based on Form 26AS data. CESTAT Kolkata sets aside order due to lack of evidence. Detailed analysis and key legal precedents.
CESTAT Delhi held that attempt to smuggle gold by breaching the condition for import makes it a prohibited goods. Accordingly, such prohibited goods cannot be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine or cannot be permitted for re-export. Hence, such prohibited goods is liable for absolute confiscation.
