CESTAT Kolkata confirms redemption fine and penalty against Karan Impex for importing old clothing. Detailed analysis of the order and its implications.
CESTAT Kolkata’s order on Commissioner of Customs vs. KEC International Limited. Justifying burden of customs duty, accounting not conclusive proof. Detailed analysis and conclusions.
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore case of J K Tyre vs Commissioner regarding the validity of excise duty refund appropriation. Detailed analysis of the order and its implications.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi order on Kabir Oldtex’s appeal. Penalty deletion on importer due to DGFT’s delay in EODC issuance. Detailed analysis and implications.
CESTAT Ahmedabad’s order in L&T vs. C.C.-Kandla regarding taxability of processed goods leftover after completing export obligations.
CESTAT Kolkata held that question of unjust enrichment in terms of section 27(2) of the Customs Act doesn’t not arise as imported goods are used as raw material for manufacture of final product i.e. imported goods are not sold to someone else.
CESTAT Hyderabad quashes differential duty demand against KRIBHCO, citing lack of evidence for price influence in OMIFCO relationship. Full text of the order.
Even if the service tax had been deposited by the appellant after 01.01.2017, nonetheless the refund of any amount of the CENVAT credit could be claimed only under subsection (3) of section 142 of the CGST Act and against this order an appeal will lie to the Tribunal.
Read the detailed analysis of JKG Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs case. CESTAT Kolkata sets aside penalties, citing lack of evidence for Customs Broker violations.
CESTAT Bangalore ruling in IBM’s favor: Penalty under Customs Act (Section 114A) equals duty, not duty and interest. Detailed analysis of the case.
