CESTAT Delhi held that Adjudicating Authority is bound by the findings in remand proceedings, it is not open for him to revisit the issue. Thus, Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the limited scope of its jurisdiction in terms of the remand order and thereby fell in error in reconsidering all the issues on merits.
CESTAT Mumbai held that re-classification of goods and demand of differential duty based on re-testing report without providing the said re-test report to the importer/ assessee is not tenable in law. Accordingly, demand u/s. 28 doesn’t stand the scrutiny of law.
CESTAT Hyderabad ruled that a company can transfer and utilize CENVAT credit between its Central Excise and service tax accounts, citing judicial precedent from the Gujarat High Court.
The Principal Commissioner was not justified in ignoring the certificate of origin issued by the competent authority in UAE. In the absence of a finding by the competent authority that this is a fake certificate, this certificate would conclusively prove that the imported goods originated from UAE.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license upheld since Customs House Agent [CHA] violated regulation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 as failed to verify importer’s credentials.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Quicklime is rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 2522 1000 since the purity of Calcium Oxide is less than 98%. Accordingly, order classifying under 2825 9090 set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that ‘Gun Shape Metal Cigarette Lighters’ are not liable for confiscation u/s. 111(d)/ 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 since ‘cigarette lighters’ of gun shape remain as lighters by its functioning and not as replica of arms as defined u/s. 69A of the Weapons Act, 1990.
CESTAT Mumbai held that mis-classification/ mis-declaration of goods merely on the basis of statement of importer not justifiable as department failed to discharged burden of proof with proper evidence. Accordingly, appeal allowed in favour of appellant.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad has set aside a service tax demand against Triton Communication, ruling that the company was a mediator, not a service provider.
CESTAT Mumbai held that double payment of amount of customs duty is only a deposit with government and hence question of applying limitation under section 27 of the Customs Act would not arise. Accordingly, order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
