The Tribunal held that SSI concessional duty cannot be claimed where aggregate clearances in the preceding year exceeded the statutory limit. A change in manufacturer does not revive exemption eligibility for the same factory.
The issue was whether insurance-related Cenvat credit was admissible when the output service became taxable later. The tribunal allowed proportionate credit in principle but remanded the matter for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that Countervailing Duty applies only to castings, even if they form part of sub-assemblies or components, and remitted the case for valuation of castings.
CESTAT Delhi held that imported parts being all parts of Juniper router are cannot be classified as Network Interface Card hence are classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90 as contended by appellant and not under CTI 8517 62 90 as contended by department.
The tribunal rejected duty demands after finding no evidence of circular trading or overvaluation. Valid licences and verified exports were held sufficient to defeat the Revenue’s case.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that suspension of customs broker license is liable to be quashed since timelines to be adhered by the officers while suspending or revoking the license of the Customs Broker as prescribed under CBLR, 2018 are not followed.
The Tribunal ruled that amounts paid during investigation cannot be retained once the demand is set aside. Only lawful assessments can justify retention, and illegal collections must be refunded with interest.
CESTAT Chennai held that notifications and circulars issued under the Customs Act, 1962 cannot take away the benefit which is otherwise available under the Foreign Trade Policy [FTP] and Handbook of Procedure [HBP].
CESTAT Mumbai held that order rejecting refund of excess CVD [Countervailing duty] paid on import of mobile handsets not sustainable since amendment of bill of entry under section 149 of the Customs Act is allowed mode of modifying assessment.
CESTAT Delhi held that rejection of declared value and re-determination of the same merely on presumptions and assumptions without independent evidence is not sustainable in law and hence liable to be set aside. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
