CESTAT Delhi directs refund with 12% interest in Indore Treasure Market City Pvt Ltd case, stating department not authorized to retain service tax paid unjustly.
CESTAT Chennai held that inclusion of royalty and technical know-how in the assessable value of the imported products unjustified as relationship has not influenced the pricing pattern.
CESTAT Bangalore rules that Huy Glass made of 100% glass fibres is correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8421 as air purifiers, not textiles.
K.H. Leather Industries Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise: Analysis of CESTAT Chennai’s decision on duty exemption for goods not received.
CESTAT Delhi held that illegal actions of the importer firms subsequent to the clearance of the cargo from the Customs Station do not attract the violation on the part of the Customs Broker. Accordingly, order upholding revocation of customs broker license set aside.
CESTAT Chennai nullifies customs duty demand on 32mm TMT bars in DLF Southern Homes vs. Commissioner of Customs case, citing lack of expertise in adjudicating authority.
CESTAT Chennai quashes customs duty demand against Blue Mount Textiles, citing issuance of show cause notice beyond the normal time limit.
Discover how CESTAT Chennai ruled in favor of Commscope Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd., granting customs duty exemption based on the minimum operating voltage of patch cords.
CESTAT Chennai grants relief to ESSA Exports by deeming seized goods as ‘scrap.’ Detailed analysis of the order, including the examination of goods and expert opinions.
CESTAT Chennai held that a decision on classification cannot be made merely because the goods are mentioned as ‘Food Supplement’ by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. Since ingredient of product clearly shows that they have oils of fish, the product is rightly classifiable under CTH 1504 20 20.
