CESTAT Hyderabad held that exemption notification no. 57/2000 issued u/s. 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 prevails over CBEC circular and hence since exemption notification does not stipulate that only imported gold should be used to manufacture goods for export there is no such requirement.
CESTAT Chennai held that Adjudicating authority has taken lenient view by levying penalty on Customs Broker for allowing use of license to unauthorised person and not revoking Customs Broker License. Accordingly, order of adjudicating authority upheld.
CESTAT Chennai held that Clear Float Glass is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 7005 1090. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that the DEPB scrips issued by the DGFT cannot be held ab initio null and void by the DRI or any other Customs Officers. Accordingly, confirmation of the demand under section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the impugned order is without any authority of law.
CESTAT Delhi held rejection of refund that too on the bais of raising the issue of classification is against the principles of judicial protocol. The order is accordingly, set aside and appeal is allowed.
The CESTAT in Mumbai rules on Spacewood Furnishers’ appeal, finding that the appeal period starts from the date of a speaking order, not the bill of entry.
There was no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner enhancing the value of the touch media device by including the value of the licence software imported subsequently and confirmed the differential duty demanded with interest and imposition of penalty.
CESTAT Delhi held that customs authorities cannot question the discharge certificate issued by DGFT in respect of the export obligation in respect of EPCG License. Accordingly, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty set aside.
Finding that the broker had collected Aadhaar, PAN, GST, bank and IT documents, Tribunal ruled that no penalty under Sections 114 & 114AA could be sustained.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of Customs Broker License by Customs authorities not sustainable since there is no violation of Regulation 10(b), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 as alleged in the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
