CESTAT Bangalore upholds customs redemption fine & penalty for importing second-hand ETL Liners, which are restricted under Foreign Trade Policy.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that merely on the basis of the bill of lading it cannot be inferred that the goods were originated from China as certificate of origin of Malaysia not proved wrong or fake.
Learn about the K S Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Customs appeal regarding denial of DFIA exemption. CESTAT Ahmedabad’s decision and analysis.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of manufacturing of tugs and barges cannot be classified as supply of manpower and hence cannot be taxed under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is leviable on person who causes to be made, signed or used any false declaration or fraudulent document
CESTAT held that number of appeals should correspond with number of distinct decisions or orders, not number of order numbers in an original order. Essentially, if a single order-in-original has multiple numbers, it doesn’t necessitate multiple appeals.
CESTAT Chennai supports Fourrts India Laboratories, ruling that physician samples fall under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Dive into the details of this landmark decision.
Detailed analysis of Beach Minerals Company’s appeal against Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ruling. CESTAT Chennai orders fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Chennai held that tendering of an order to an unauthorized person or sending it without ‘registered post with acknowledgement due’ is not considered as a valid service of order. Accordingly, matter disposed of by way of remand.
CESTAT Chennai held that once the licencing authority has found that the licencing conditions have been fulfilled, it would not be open to the customs authorities too contend that the imports under the licence are contrary to law.
