The Tribunal held that Customs cannot reject a higher transaction value to redetermine a lower value for imposing anti-dumping duty. Rule 12 does not authorize downward revision merely to levy ADD.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement of witness recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure prescribed under section 138B of the Customs Act is not followed. Accordingly, penalty imposed u/s. 112(a) is set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant as the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed. Thus, penalty imposed under section 112(a)(i) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that mere mention of Section 112 without detailed imputation in the show cause notice cannot justify penalty. Violation of CHA Regulations alone was found insufficient to sustain penal action.
CESTAT Delhi set aside confiscation and penalty after finding no evidence that the vehicle owner knew it was used for transporting smuggled gold. The ruling clarifies that absence of knowledge defeats action under Sections 115 and 117 of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement recorded u/s. 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure contemplated u/s. 138B of the Customs Act not followed. Accordingly, penalties-imposed u/s. 112(a)(i) and 112(a)(ii) cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside a differential IGST demand, holding that CBIC’s beneficial circular clarifying 12% GST on poultry machinery parts applies retrospectively. The Tribunal ruled that payment at the lower rate stands regularised for the past period.
The Tribunal ruled that leftover offshore materials used at Bombay High had already suffered duty and were not freshly imported, making the customs demand and penalties unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that once the NCLT accepts a Resolution Plan and orders liquidation, the Revenue’s pending service tax appeal cannot survive and stands abated.
The Tribunal held that demand under Section 28 cannot be raised before finalisation of provisional assessment. As the goods were cleared provisionally, the duty demand, penalties, and confiscation were quashed.
