CESTAT Ahmedabad held that DGFT notification no. 26/2015-20 dated 21.08.2018 restricts export of Garnet irrespective of its origin. Customs tariff doesn’t distinguish between ‘Garnet found on beach’ and ‘Garnet found in inland places’. Accordingly, confiscation of export goods uphold and penalty imposed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that the case of imposition of penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act would be covered under regulation 3 (2) (c) and hence appellant is not eligible for grant of License for Private Warehouse under section 58 of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Allahabad held that finding recorded by Commissioner (A) in earlier round of litigation have attained finality. Accordingly, the attempt to re-agitate the same issue in subsequent proceedings is barred by principles of Res Judicata. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that extended period of limitation is not invocable since alleged inadmissible cenvat credit was duly reflected in the return. Accordingly, demand beyond normal period of limitation set aside.
The dispute concerned whether food sold at cinema counters involved a taxable service. The Tribunal held such transactions to be pure sales of goods and set aside the service tax demand with consequential relief.
CESTAT held that withholding goods due to a 100-unit model-wise limit was unsustainable where no centralized monitoring existed, and directed provisional release against bond and bank guarantee.
The Tribunal ruled that once the classification was upheld for the importer, penalty on the customs broker could not be sustained. The decision underscores that a resolved classification dispute cannot justify penal action on the agent.
The Tribunal held that delayed PIMS registration, when completed before clearance, is a procedural lapse. Confiscation and penalty were set aside as the import was not in substantive violation of policy.
The Tribunal held that failure to return a seized laptop and documents used for defence vitiated the adjudication and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of Customs Broker licence justified since it was involved in filing benami shipping bills in the name of some other IEC holder with intend to export prohibited goods. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal dismissed.
