CESTAT Mumbai imposed penalty on customs broker for failure in not being proactive in fulfilling their obligation by failing to bring to the notice of the Customs department about the non-compliances in export transactions.
CESTAT Mumbai held that ‘interface card’ is classifiable under customs tariff it 8517 7010 and not under customs tariff item 8517 6290. Accordingly, demand of differential duty set aside.
Read about the case of Commissioner of CGST & Excise vs. National Aluminium Company Limited where no duty liability was imposed on transition from EOU to EPCG Scheme due to fulfilled export obligations.
Read about the Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. C.S.T. – Service Tax case, where the need for legal protection of intellectual property for tax liability is discussed.
CESTAT Hyderabad lowers penalty for discrepancies in import declaration due to negligence, in absence of ulterior motive. Detailed analysis of the case.
CESTAT Chandigarh rules that General Sales Agent (GSA) commissions received by Bird Travels P Ltd. from foreign airlines for promoting and marketing services are not subject to service tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that mis-declaration allegations without complete evidence and violation of natural justice cannot be upheld.
CESTAT Kolkata drops Service Tax demand for HUDCO Construction services due to non-commercial project nature. Learn more on the case of Uttam Chand Sethia and its implications on this blog post!
The Commissioner of Customs vs. Axis Shipping Agency case: CESTAT Kolkata rules issuance of show cause notice under Section 124 of Customs Act for Customs Broker license void ab initio.
CESTAT Chandigarh overrules appeal dismissal as time-barred in the case of Art N Glass vs. C.C Ludhiana, emphasizing compliance with the Customs Act’s prescribed timeframe.
