CESTAT Kolkata held that the device i.e. Face Recognition System is clearly Automatic Data Processing machinery falling under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 8471 only and not under CTH 8543. Accordingly, appeals are allowed.
CESTAT held that a Customs Broker cannot be penalised merely because the exporter mis-declared goods or value. Liability under CBLR requires independent proof of broker’s breach of obligations.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under the Customs Act cannot be sustained when it is based on assumptions, unsupported statements, and denial of cross-examination.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside orders denying CENVAT Credit on rent-a-cab and insurance services, directing the original authority to provide detailed reasons and grant personal hearing.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of Traffic and Transit Management Centers is covered within the ambit of transport terminal, and hence falls within the exclusion category of definition of taxable services of Works Contract Services, and hence the same is not liable to service tax.
CESTAT held that valuation under Rule 10A fails where the department cannot prove that goods were manufactured as job work, reaffirming that free supply of some inputs alone is insufficient.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that the adjudicating authority failed to examine exemption eligibility and supporting documents, directing fresh consideration of service tax liability.
CESTAT Kolkata held that in absence of any cogent and corroborative evidence, gold in question cannot be construed to be of foreign origin or smuggled in nature. Accordingly, god seized is not liable for confiscation under section 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act. 1962. Accordingly, order is set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that services rendered by Marriott Hotels India Private Limited to their group company [Marriott Hong Kong] qualifies as export of services and accordingly no service tax is leviable. Thus, order quashed and appeal allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the allegation of clandestine removal of goods cannot be sustained on the basis of documents recovered from such third-party premises. Accordingly, issue answered in favour of the appellant.
