Read the full text of the CESTAT Delhi order on C. L. International vs Commissioner of Customs. Analysis of mis-declaration of Maida as Wheat for MEIS benefit.
CESTAT Bangalore held that Reflective Glass not found in notification no. 4/2009 dated 06.01.2009 is not exempt from levy of anti-dumping duty. Thus, anti-dumping duty leviable on reflective glass imported from China.
Asok Sparklers Factory vs Commissioner of Customs case: CESTAT Chennai remands matter to consider DGFT response on redemption fine for re-export of imported Titanium Powder.
CESTAT Bangalore held that since the smartra immobiliser is only a security device to prevent a vehicle from being stolen it is rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8708 as parts of motor vehicle.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand of service tax on amount received by cricket player R. Ashwin from M/s. India Cements Ltd. under IPL Playing Contract is unsustainable in law.
Read the CESTAT Ahmedabad order on ONGC Petro’s customs duty remission appeal for imported raw material destroyed in a fire at its SEZ unit. Analysis and insights included.
CESTAT Kolkata held that benefit of notification no. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 is available on imported manganese ore lumps, crushed, screened, washed having ‘Mn’ content of 43%/45% (approx).
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules software loaded on medium is a sale, not a service, dismissing Service Tax demand. Details of Edukite Software Pvt Ltd vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-I included.
CESTAT Chennai dismisses appeal by Principal Commissioner of Customs against Contemporary Leather Pvt. Ltd. Allegations of not following CBEC norms in shipping bill conversion examined in detail.
Explore the Tiffins Barytes vs. Commissioner of CE & ST case at CESTAT Bangalore. Learn about the abatement of appeal and its implications under Rule 22.
