CESTAT Delhi held that that refund has to be granted to the respondent as the order for amendment in the Bills of Entry had attained finality.
Explore exemption under Entry No. 14 for machining of rails in case of Voestalpine VAE VKN India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. Detailed analysis and legal insights.
CESTAT Mumbai ruling: Cenvat credit refund cannot be denied without Rule 14 proceedings. Upholds eligibility for input services in export. Case reference: M/s. KKR India Advisors Pvt. Ltd.
CESTAT Bangalore held that web cameras are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473 and not under 8525 as web cameras are not digital camera nor it can be considered as a television camera.
Explore the Ajay Traders vs. C.C.-Mundra case: CESTAT Ahmedabad rejects customs’ reliance on Zuaba portal data, deeming it unauthenticated. Details of the order and key legal arguments.
Explore the CESTAT Chennai order in TCP Limited vs Commissioner of Customs regarding the concessional rate of duty on imported coal. Detailed analysis and implications.
Explore the implications of the National Company Law Tribunal’s resolution plan approval on the CESTAT Bangalore’s jurisdiction in the case of Patanjali Foods Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs.
CESTAT Kolkata held that confiscation of boondi silver and silver jewellary alleging it to be smuggled goods without any evidence to allege that these are third country origin is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that imposition of penalty for failure in not being proactive for fulfilling of regulation 10(a) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 [CBLR,2018] alone, is appropriate and justifiable.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-determination of value resorting to valuation under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules justified on failure to advance any documents/ invoice to substantiate the value of goods.
