Explore the CESTAT Delhi decision in Shahid Ali vs. Principal Commissioner, focusing on allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration in ‘Food Supplements’ imports. Learn why the adjudicating authority’s penalty imposition on the proprietorship firm and its proprietor was deemed double jeopardy.
Explore the CESTAT Chandigarh ruling in Bansal Steel Power Limited vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Rohtak, highlighting the flawed investigation leading to the denial of credit on returned goods. Uncover crucial insights for businesses dealing with similar issues.
Since assessee could not discharge their responsibility of proving non-smuggled nature of the seized foreign marked gold as per section 123 of Customs Act thus, the confiscation of the gold bars, gold coins and small pieces of gold under section 111(d) and section 111(i) was correct.
CESTAT Delhi’s ruling in National Steel & Agro Industries Limited vs. Principal Commissioner – Analysis of Rule 6(3A) in proportionate credit division. Crucial insights for manufacturers on compliance.
Even when an assessee had suppressed facts, the extended period of limitation could be evoked only when suppression‟ was shown to be willful and with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Commissioner had not recorded any finding that even if assessee had suppressed the fact of having received the amount, it was willful and with an intent evade payment of service.
Explore the case of Volvo Auto India vs. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi). Learn about customs duty, valuation rules, and the impact of expenses on the assessable value.
Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad) 1. Excise Appeal 70628 of 2019 has been filed by M/s. Parle Agro Pvt Ltd1 to modify the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner, CGST(Appeals), Noida2, to the extent that interest should be granted @12% instead of @6%, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals). This order […]
Since authorized courier was prohibited from opening and verifying contents of imported consignments and it had not violated Regulation 12(1)(v) and therefore, revocation of the registration and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 13(1) and imposition of penalty under Regulation 14 could not be sustained.
Redemption fine & penalty imposed by Revenue Department without final assessment is not permissible The Hon’ble CESTAT Chandigarh in matter of M/s J.S. Steel Traders v. the Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana [Custom Appeal No. 60037 of 2021, Final Order No. 60840/2021 dated May 24, 2021] set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department, imposing […]
Laesen & Toubro Limited Vs C.C.-Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In view of the settled law, irrespective whether the classification claimed by the appellant is correct or not since the classification proposed by the Revenue is absolutely incorrect, the entire case of the Revenue will not sustain. Therefore, we are not addressing the issue that whether the […]
