CESTAT Chennai held that boiler in unassembled form is removed in several lots on different dates doesn’t mean that parts only and not the whole boiler is cleared from factory. The parts are to be classified as complete machine under 8402.10. Hence, exemption vide Sl.No.84 of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 as amended duly available.
CESTAT Chennai allowed the assessee’s appeal, stating that the demand of duty with interest was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal held that the SCN issued after the appeal stage lacked validity and that the demand of duty and interest was not justified. The department’s appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT Chennai acknowledged the procedural violation by the appellant but recognized that the goods underwent 100% examination, revealing no banned substances. Considering this and the appellant’s cost and delay in the clearance process, the CESTAT Chennai found the imposed redemption fine and penalties excessive. Therefore, the CESTAT Chennai reduced the redemption fine to INR 1,00,000 and the penalty to INR 50,000.
CESTAT Chennai held that when no time limit is prescribed under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 the department cannot reject the request for conversion of shipping bill.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Cenvat Credit availed on the strength of duty paying documents cannot be denied alleging that invoices issued by manufacturer were not genuine.
Explore CESTAT Chennai’s decision in Emerson Process Management Chennai case. Learn about duty on intermediate goods, Rule 6(6) of CCR 2004, and implications for manufacturers
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services of transportation of goods by a person other than GTA are clearly exempt under Section 66D (P)(i)(A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The case between the Commissioner of Customs (Air) and RBR Knit Process Pvt Ltd, regarding the eligibility for custom duty exemption of imported membrane systems, concluded with a favorable verdict for the latter by CESTAT Chennai.
The CESTAT in Chennai ruled in favor of the department, classifying Samsung Galaxy Tabs as ADP Machines/Tablet Computers rather than Mobile Phones, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) prior decision.
Held that the goods were brought in the factory premises without having proper invoices/documents with intent to clear them clandestinely. Accordingly, confiscation and the redemption fine as well as the penalty imposed u/s. 11 AC of Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is absolutely justified.
