CESTAT Kolkata held that the Hydraulic Study Department of Calcutta Port Trust were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 71/80-Cus dated 26.03.1981 and Notification No. 152/94-Cus dated 13.07.1994. Notification exempts goods which are imported by research institution from payment of customs duty.
Dive into the Narayan Sharma vs. Commissioner of Customs case at CESTAT Chandigarh, involving the absolute confiscation of smuggled gold. Learn about the facts, statements, and documentary evidence leading to the decision.
Dive into the Jammas Food Supplier vs. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax case. CESTAT Mumbai clarifies service tax applicability to outdoor caterers.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that refund under rule 16 of Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 allowable on account of change in constitution of firm into a private limited company.
CESTAT Delhi held that initiation of proceedings against Customs Broker alleging violation of regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licence Regulations, 2018 unjustified as he is not the party to alleged mis-declaration and undervaluation.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that extreme penalty of revocation of custom broker licence for violating obligation under regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 unwarranted, however, imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security justified.
CESTAT Delhi held that service provided by technical, inspection and certification agency in relation to inspection and certification of export goods is liable to service tax under ‘Technical, Inspection and Certification Service’.
CESTAT Allahabad held that invocation of extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act unjustified in absence of any willful suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that the activity of fitting the power lens into the frames is merely results in assembly and hence the same doesn’t amount to manufacture. Accordingly, duty demand unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that once rule 10(b) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1944 gets applicable, residual rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1944 cannot be applied. Hence, demand confirmed under rule 11 is liable to be set aside.
