CESTAT Delhi held that provisions of section 6 of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (the 2020 Act) extends the time limit specified in the Tariff Act for issuance of the notification imposing anti-dumping duty.
CESTAT Mumbai held that tariff items within heading 8523 don’t offer scope for inclusion of ‘software’ of any type in the residual entry ‘others’ owing to the exhaustive enumeration in description in that heading.
CESTAT Delhi held that exemption benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 not available as new conditions amended vide Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17.7.2015 not satisfied.
CESTAT Delhi held that simply because a suspicion has arisen in a particular case it is not sufficient ground to suspend the licence of the customs broker who handled such imports/exports.
CESTAT Chennai held that merely because some parts were imported separately and cleared under a separate Bill of Entry (BOE), the department cannot contend that the goods cannot be classified under CTH 8437. Goods classifiable under CTH 8437 as order placed for supply would be complete only by including the goods imported vide both Bills of Entry.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imports of Motor Spirit/ High Speed Diesel is assessable on actual receipt in shore tank and not transaction value based on invoice price of overseas supplier.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that service tax is leviable only if service provider provides lease services and is also a Telegraph Authority as defined under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Both conditions needs to be satisfied, for levy of service tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that the demand of duty alleging that cost of free supply material has to be included in the assessable value is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as goods deposited in bonded warehouse for re-export from the said warehouse and shipping bills have also been filed for export, allegation of misdeclaration of goods cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of notification no. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 not available to machine dipped match splints as power is used in the manufacture of match splints.
