CESTAT held that Nimbooz by 7 UP and Nimbus masala soda by 7 UP are classifiable under chapter heading 22029020 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is for category of fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks and thus M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. is entitled to consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
Subir Modak Vs CC (CESTAT Kolkata) From the above definitions, it is clear that even if the goods are of foreign origin, if they have been imported and cleared for home consumption, they cease to be imported goods thereafter and the importer ceases to be the importer. Therefore, no duty can be assessed on such […]
PLG Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: The ‘coated paper’, as certified by the competent authority designated under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), did not conform to the description corresponding to sub-heading 8410.13 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The denial of the benefit of the concessional rate of duty […]
So-Hum Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata) We find that the Appellant was not availing any benefit in terms of the Exemption Notification and there was no occasion for confiscation of the live goods under Bill of Entry No.2321708 dated 05.07.2017 as the letter dated 16.07.2017 shows that the Country of Origin Certificate […]
Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs Mumbai (Air Cargo Import) (CESTAT Mumbai) The Revenue against the sanction of the refund which arose out of re-assessment of the Bills of Entry, filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appeal by holding that since the appellants have not filed appeals […]
Javed Akhtar Vs CCGST, Mumbai West (CESTAT Mumbai) The issue involved in this Appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for refund of service tax paid under protest without challenging the assessment proceedings, which was held to be not payable by authorities concerned in an appeal of another assessee of the very same transaction? The […]
CESTAT ruled that the proposal for confiscation and penalty cannot be segregated from duty demand and therefore the proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.
CESTAT allowed the refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty. Further, held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible then that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted.
Suvikram Plastex Pvt Ltd Vs CCT (CESTAT Bengalore) Transition of unutilised Input Tax Credit could be allowed only in respect of taxes and duties which were subsumed in the new GST Law. Admittedly, the three types of Cess involved before us, namely Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education (SHE) Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess were […]
The order of confiscation with an option for redemption fine and penalty for importer not having Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number is invalid as there is no violation of procedure under Foreign Trade Policy if goods imported for personal use against Bill of Entry without having IEC.
