Detailed analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on the Jindal Fibres Vs C.C.-Kandla case, regarding penalties for misdeclared goods under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Understand the implications for companies operating within SEZs.
CESTAT Chennai held that exemption of Basic Customs Duty under notification no. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 read with notification no. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 available as there is no violation of conditions. Further, demand proposed on misconception of facts and law is unjustified.
Held that as a party to the joint-venture, obligations and responsibilities discharged by co-venturer cannot be brought under service tax levy. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside.
CESTAT Bangalore has upheld the decision to revoke the suspension of Bon Freight’s CHA license, due to lack of conclusive evidence pointing towards their involvement in irregularities.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad ordered a crucial conversion from DFRC to DEEC scheme in the case of Vinny Royal Plasticoates Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs. Dive in to understand the case details and implications.
CESTAT Chennai resolves an issue related to the imposition of service tax on bank charges deducted by foreign banks, setting a precedent that upholds the rights of exporters in India.
A comprehensive analysis of the case Bombay Fluid Systems Components Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, where CESTAT quashed the classification of stainless steel tube fittings under the Customs Tariff Act.
Delve into CESTAT Bangalore’s decision in Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, where the tribunal quashed the original classification of ‘Line Extender’ as a Broadcast Signal Amplifier.
CESTAT Chandigarh rules in favour of the Department in a case involving refund claims filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The tribunal asserts that duty was correctly paid and unjust enrichment was not established.
CESTAT held that Commissioner (Appeals) had overstepped his bounds by reviewing a Tribunal’s order that had already gained finality due to lack of appeal. Department’s selective application of review processes was criticized as a mockery of judicial process.
