In the case of Ishwar Chand Gupta vs. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata), learn how CESTAT directed the refund of a security deposit after confiscating a truck transporting Red Sander Wood.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the registration of the premises is not a pre-condition for availment of cenvat credit and thereof consequently the refund.
CESTAT Bangalore held that section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 allows amendment of a Bill of Entry after the clearance of the goods only on the basis of documentary evidences which were in existence at the time the goods were cleared for home consumption. In absence of the same, the amendment is unjustified.
A deep dive into CESTAT Kolkata’s ruling in Commissioner of Customs Vs K.K. Woollens, where the court confirmed penalties for undetermined imports of used clothes.
CESTAT Mumbai held that duty liability in terms of Chewing tobacco & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 unsustainable merely alleging that sealed/uninstalled packing machine is available in the factory premises.
CESTAT Kolkata held that appellant were under the bonafide belief that processes undertaken by them doesn’t amount to manufacture and accordingly, they cleared goods to raw material supplier on collection of job charges only. Accordingly, extended period of limitation not invocable.
CESTAT Allahabad held that denial of refund claim of service tax under notification no. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 as taxable service in respect of which refund is claim is not mentioned in the list of specified service approved by SEZ authority unjustified.
CESTAT Chennai upholds the demand of concession availed vide customs notification on failure of appellant to maintain proper accountal of the receipt of imported goods till their utilization in the manufacture of the specified finished products.
CESTAT Chennai rules in favor of Renault Nissan Automotive India, stating that their refund claim can’t be rejected for not opting for Provisional Assessment.
Analyzing the S R Traders vs. Commissioner of Customs case under Customs Act Section 28, including undervaluation and compliance issues with cosmetics imports.
