Tribunal ruled that concessional customs duty was unavailable where imported goods were not actually used in manufacturing due to a fire, upholding duty demand while setting aside penalties.
Tribunal holds that service tax cannot be demanded solely on differences between income tax and service tax returns. The ruling confirms that exemptions and disclosures must be verified through proper inquiry, and extended limitation was wrongly invoked.
CESTAT Mumbai held that consignment of steam coal imports from Indonesia is not overvalued and the scheme of valuation does not stand in support of the manner in which the value has been sought to be substituted in the notice. Accordingly, present appeals are dismissed.
CESTAT Delhi held that import of parts of e-rikshaw cannot be presumed to be import of an e-rikshaw in complete knocked-down/semi knocked-down [CKD/SKD] condition as three essential components were not imported. Accordingly, demand set aside.
The Chennai Tribunal upheld penalties against custodians, steamer agents, and employees for removing seized goods without permission, confirming accountability under the Customs Act.
CESTAT Delhi upheld a ₹10 lakh penalty on a customs broker for filing benami Shipping Bills without exporter authorization, confirming liability for mis-declared goods.
The Tribunal held that the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 was not in force at the time of shipment in January 2017. The import was cleared as BIS marking was not required, setting aside previous confiscation orders.
CESTAT Chennai held that royalty and licence fees paid by Xiaomi India under exclusive agreement is includible in the transaction value as per section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Accordingly, differential duty confirmed.
The Tribunal held that complimentary room stays and discounts provided by a hotel lessee to the lessor formed part of the consideration for renting services. The non-monetary benefits were held taxable under Section 67.
The Tribunal held that the prohibition order no longer had effect because the broker’s Mumbai registration expired, rendering the appeal infructuous. With no surviving cause of action, the order required no interference.
