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.
CESTAT Kolkata held that valuation of fuel oil and diesel oil used during coastal run of the vessel is to be done as per the ‘Residual Method’ prescribed under rule 9(1) of the Valuation Rules.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere acceptance of the reassessed value and payment thereof will not be sufficient to confirm the allegations of undervaluation. Burden on the department to prove mis-declaration and undervaluation not discharged. Hence, differential duty demand set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that revocation of customs broker licence for violation of post import condition of the exemption notification by the importer unsustainable as customs broker has a limited role of filing bill of entry and at no stretch of imagination can be held liable for violation of post import condition.
CESTAT Chennai held that coverage of activity of Postweld heat treatment/ stress relief heat treatment as within the definition of ‘Technical Testing and Analysis Service’ needs re-consideration as appellant doesn’t issue any report certifying quality of goods.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that restriction of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoice is applicable only in case of sale of goods. In the present case, restriction of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoice is not applicable as there is only a stock transfer.
A proprietorship firm and the partnership firm even though the said proprietor was one of the partner in the partnership firm, both could not be a related person under section 2(41) of the Companies Act,1956.
CESTAT Kolkata held that when the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) is Nil Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS), being computed at the rate of 10% of BCD, will also be Nil
