Rishad Shipping And Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT find that in para 29 of the Order-in-Original, the original authority has held that the appellant were liable for penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 and subsequently ordered imposition of penalty of 2.0 lakhs under Section 114(i) […]
CESTAT Hyderabad held that as per Rule 3 of General Rules of Interpretation specific description is to be preferred over a general description. Accordingly, CTH 9027 is more specific for instrument – I Stat System along with cartridges, etc. than CTH 9018.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that demand of duty on freight by including the same in assessable value not sustainable as factory gate is the place of removal.
CESTAT Chennai held that in agreements where one party is non-resident, it is responsibility of other Indian resident party to meet TDS obligation arising on account of the respective agreement.
There was a bona fide litigation going on as regards the nature of activity carried. As to whether activity carried amount to production so as to be covered under Business Auxiliary Services was a debatable issue
CESTAT Mumbai remands customs appeal on service date ambiguity. Order-in-Original service method not specified. Time-bar decision reconsidered.
Glider Technologies Vs Commissioner of Customs Cochin-Cus (CESTAT Bangalore) Heard both sides. 2. Learned advocate submits that they have filed necessary application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy dispute) Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) before the concerned authority and since the appeal before this Tribunal was dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit amount under Section 35F of Central Excise […]
Shree Rishabhdev Marble and Minerals Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT find that the present proceedings before this Court emanate from a letter dated 6.1.2020 which cannot be treated as a proper show cause notice. No reason or evidence to support the allegation has been brought on record by the respondent […]
Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) The appellant had contended before the authorities below that as per Section 83 (3) of Chapter VII , Section 83 (5) of Chapter VII of the Finance Act, 2010, Section 94 of the Finance Act, 2004, Section 138 & Section 139 of the Finance Act, 2007 […]
CESTAT Chennai held that the demand of duty in respect of semifinished goods cannot sustain. Accordingly, the duty paid thereon is duly refundable.
