CESTAT upholds the denial of EPCG benefit for used machinery but reduces the redemption fine and sets aside the Section 114A penalty due to bona fide belief.
CESTAT Delhi held that no wilful suppression was proven to invoke extended limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Demand set aside on limitation.
CESTAT Delhi held that Epoxy Resin imported was an impregnation resin and goods were duly cleared by customs under DFIA licence as ‘impregnation resin’. Accordingly, demand of duty denying benefit of DFIA licence cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Kolkata held that silk fabric with 85% or more silk excluding Noil Silk is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 5007 2090 and cannot be classified as Noil Silk Fabric under Customs Tariff Heading 5007 1000. Accordingly, re-classification of goods not sustainable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claims under Section 27 cannot invoke extended limitation if the bill of entry was assessed under Section 17 and not provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act.
CESTAT ruled that transaction value supported by final invoice and BRC must be accepted for export duty finalization, overriding CRCL report on moisture content. set aside a Customs order, confirming that the actual transaction value realized for iron ore exports must be used for final duty assessment.
CESTAT Bangalore ruled Section 113(h)(i) of Customs Act applies only if goods are entered for export. Shortage due to EOU’s clerical error not liable for confiscation. citing a clerical error and not a deliberate mis-declaration or illicit DTA clearance.
CESTAT confirmed a Service Tax demand, ruling that a service provider’s failure to explain a large discrepancy between ITR and ST-3 returns justifies the tax liability.
CESTAT Bangalore held that additional duty of customs is very much leviable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act in respect of imported natural rubber equal to the duty of excise levied as cess under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947. Accordingly, refund rightly denied and appeal rejected.
CESTAT held that confiscation of dry dates and penalties under the Customs Act were unjustified as the Department failed to prove the goods’ foreign origin. Opinions based on visual inspection were deemed without evidentiary value.
