Appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of under Sl. No. 1335 of Notification No. 46/2011-CUS because the exemption is available unconditionally under the notification to all goods falling under 851190 imported from ASEAN countries
Held that importer already accepted the enhanced value determined by the assessing officer, setting aside the said order on casual observation by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable in law
Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs Ankit Enterprises (CESTAT Mumbai) Held that the goods have been imported, and presented, separately and independently; no evidence, other than conjecture about the conspiracy to disassemble branded products. Recovery of duty not sustainable. Facts- The assessees imported television sets, video compact disc (VCD) players, and music systems in disassembled form. […]
Mohit Industries Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The impugned consignment was detained and was proposed to be confiscated for want of the proper BIS certificate. This being a Bureau of India Standards certificate is issued by the respective Ministry in the favour of the manufacturer who further issues same to its buyers. Since the […]
J. K. Cement Works Vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed Cenvat credit totalling Rs. 2,50,195/-, which was mainly on account of iron and steel structure, tower material, steel casting. Appellant inter alia urges that admittedly these items have been used by the appellant in the factory of production. These items […]
CESTAT set aside the demand order has held that invoking extended limitation period by the Revenue Department cannot be sustained, being time barred and is invalid in absence of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of assessee.
The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client. Once the verification is done requirement of regulation 10(n) is satisfied.
Inductotherm India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Only ground on which the department has been denying the exemption Notification No. 25/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 is that the subject imported goods are exempted only if it is imported and used by the IT Industries whereas, in the appellant’s case the industry is not IT Industry but […]
Appellant had reasonably explained the licit possession of the two gold bars, as received by way of succession under the will of his father however due to unexplained source of licit acquisition by father of appellant, penalty under Section 112(a) was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) and penalty under Section 114AA was set aside.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT held that in case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as advance towards the duty. The PLA Amount takes the color of excise duty only when it is utilized for payment of duty on clearance of […]
