CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under rule 26 of Central Excise Rules rightly imposed on the Chartered Accountant who issued false performance certificate to fraudulent parties based on which fraudulent advance license were obtained.
CESTAT Kolkata held that cenvat credit is available in respect of iron and steel, cement, welding electrodes etc. used in manufacture of storage tank and pollution control system.
CESTAT Kolkata held that NIDB data cannot be relied upon when it is relating to different quantity and quality of goods. Further, enhancement of value based on LME prices untenable in view of unambiguous certificates from the manufacturers of the impugned goods.
CESTAT Chennai held that in case of Inter-unit transfer of goods for captive consumption, the actual cost of production (100% of the cost of production), of the raw material procured from the Bhadrachalam unit of the appellant [excluding the notional loading under Rule 8 – 15% / 10%] is the cost of raw material in the hands of the Chennai unit
CESTAT Delhi held that manual breast pump has nothing to do with any medical or surgical procedures nor is it used by any medical practitioner hence the same is classifiable under CTH 39269090.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that review of declared price without any evidence, to the effect that relation has influenced the declared price or to the effect that there was flow back of money from importer to related supplier, is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that remission of duty available as variation in KL is only due to density of the goods that due to different temperature at the time of loading and unloading.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that excess duty paid on difference between the clearance value from the factory and the sale value from the depot is refundable. Further, such refund cannot be rejected on ground that appellant has not followed provisional assessment.
CESTAT Delhi held that the subsidy amount received under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003 using VAT-37B challan cannot be included in the transaction value for the purpose of levy of central excise duty under section 4 of the Excise Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that in case of amendment in Bill of Entry, period of limitation should be counted from the date of amendment and not from the date of assessment of Bill of Entry.
