CESTAT Mumbai held that there is no provision/ stipulation that prohibits temporary retention of goods in non-bonded area while remedies were under way and, that too, with permission from customs authorities. Accordingly, redemption fine and penalties set aside.
They also explained that the renting service, including furniture, was approved by the SEZ Unit Approval Committee for use in authorized operations. Department argued that furniture did not fall under immovable property and therefore could not be covered under the Renting of Immovable Property service category.
Tribunal also observed that assessee’s change in classification from 25132030 to 25132090 after the notification indicated an intent to circumvent the export restriction. It further held that reliance on internal communications not mentioned in the show cause notice did not alter the fact that the export violated DGFT policy.
Department argued that the inspection certificates appeared forged and misleading. It was pointed out that the inspection timings shown were not physically possible, and the certificates were issued by an inspector whose link to the issuing agency was unclear.
M/s. KLJ Polymers & Chemicals Ltd (the appellant importer) was engaged in import of different types of chemicals, PVCs, pigments etc and also engaged in manufacturing and trading of polymers, pigments, lubricants, stabilizers etc.
CESTAT Allahabad rules customs brokers are not liable for verifying the correctness of importer documents, overturning penalties against HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Assessee was implicated in a gold smuggling case after Avijit Sarkar was caught at Kolkata Airport by Customs officials. Acting on intelligence about ground staff involvement, officers recovered four gold bars weighing 3,000 grams and worth Rs. 82.5 lakh from Sarkar’s shoes.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere act of purchasing gold without bill is highly insufficient to confirm the grave allegations of conspiring the act of smuggling of gold. Accordingly, the order imposing penalty on the appellants and confiscating their money is held not sustainable.
Delhi CESTAT cancels Rs. 10 lakh penalty on Safewater Lines, noting that the basis for penalty confiscation of goods was already set aside.
Kolkata CESTAT sets aside service tax demand on Maninder Singh, citing recipient’s payment under RCM and invalidity of demand based solely on Form 26AS.
