CESTAT Delhi held that Customs Broker failed to verify the correctness of the documents, violated the obligation as a custom broker under CBLR, 2013, accordingly, revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit justified.
CESTAT Delhi held that pipes, used in manufacture- production of oil needs repair- replacement, are capital goods. Hence, no excise duty can be charged on the scrap of the pipes produced- generated during the repair or maintenance of the pipes.
JMK Energy Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that simply because there are four other alternative means through which Portable Solar Home Electric Light – HANS 300 and HANS 150 can be charged, it doesn’t mean that they are not solar power based devices. Facts- M/s JMK Energy, New Delhi filed this […]
CESTAT Bangalore held that process undertaken by job worker of injecting the raw materials into aerosol cans doesn’t amount to manufacture and hence excise duty demand thereon not sustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that imported goods are liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act as restricted goods are imported in violation of the provisions of ITC(HS) Import Policy and the goods were not correctly valued.
CESTAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act against steamer agent unsustainable as confiscation of the said vessel for alleged violations of chapter VI of Customs Act, 1962 as well as the duty liability arising from misuse of ‘ship stores’ and ‘bunkers’ set aside.
HC Held that, no Service Tax can be levied on the activity of take-away of food items as it would amount to sale of goods wherein, element of service such as dining facility, washing area and clearing of the tables are not involved.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as revenue has not demanded any service tax on output service by denying the export status, likewise revenue cannot deny refund by treating the services provided not to be export of service.
CESTAT Kolkata granted redemption of prohibited goods as against absolute confiscation as importer was not aware about the amendment in policy and importantly policy was amended when the shipment was in process.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty was paid on the clearance value on which demand was raised. Accordingly as duty was paid demand under rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 unsustainable.
