Tribunal ruled that Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess cannot be applied twice when determining duty on EOU DTA clearances. The demand was quashed as calculation method adopted by Department was inconsistent with settled law.
The Tribunal found that the Customs Broker fulfilled obligations by verifying exporter documents, and no requirement existed for deeper background checks. The suspension order was set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imported tugboats are not machinery, equipment or tools. It is specifically covered under Chapter Heading 8904 and hence benefit of notification no. 72/2017-Cus. dated 16.08.2017 not admissible.
CESTAT ruled that statements and WhatsApp messages cannot be treated as evidence for imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 without following procedural safeguards, including examination in chief and cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that reassessing value a second time without fresh evidence was unsustainable and set aside the duty, interest, and penalty demand.
The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority had considered the alleged violations and given reasons for lifting the suspension. With a fresh suspension issued during the appeal, the Tribunal held the matter to be infructuous and dismissed it.
The Tribunal held that discrepancies between statements and Bills of Entry cannot justify rejecting genuine import documents. Confiscation was overturned as the Bills of Entry were improperly disregarded.
Tribunal ruled that confiscation cannot be sustained when goods were re-exported before Revenue’s appeal, restoring the original order.
The Tribunal confirmed recovery of erroneously refunded CVD amounts with interest, following the Supreme Court ruling. The appellant’s reliance on prior Tribunal orders was invalidated.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities misread the amended notification on Chapter 31 goods and failed to show that the imports were clearly excluded. The matter was remanded for fresh examination of the exemption’s scope.
