CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax demand order set aside since show cause notice [SCN] and adjudication order not duly served upon the appellant. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that no demand of service tax can be made simply based on the difference between the Balance Sheet and the ST-3 returns without providing any explanation about the nature of service on which service tax is payable. Thus, order is set aside to that extent.
CESTAT held that Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations cap penalties at ₹50,000. The Revenue cannot seek a higher penalty or licence revocation beyond what the rules permit.
CESTAT held that dummy export documents prepared for internal charge calculation did not amount to fraud. With no evidence of misuse, penalties on the CFS and its officials were quashed.
The tribunal remanded the case after finding that the customs authorities failed to explain how the enhanced value was arrived at. It held that valuation being the foundation for duty and penalties must be supported by a clear methodology.
CESTAT held that duty drawback must be recovered when genuine sale proceeds of exports are not realised. Mere receipt of unrelated remittances does not satisfy Rule 16A.
The tribunal held that since the IEC alert was lifted after the original order, the refund claim required fresh consideration. The matter was remanded to allow document submission and lawful adjudication.
CESTAT held that failure to intimate change of address and return of postal notices showed lack of bona fides. Appeals filed late were rightly rejected as time-barred.
CESTAT confirmed confiscation and penalties where memory cards were hidden inside declared metal clips. Mis-declaration and concealment justified duty demand and penalties.
CESTAT Delhi held that recovery of duty under section 28(1) of the Customs Act for violation of condition of license not sustained as no allegation of violation raised by DGFT who issued the import license. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed.
