Tribunal held that amounts incurred as authorized pure-agent payments could not form part of taxable value. The ruling clarifies that failure to interpret Rule 5(2) correctly invalidated the demand.
The Tribunal held that export duty must be based on the final invoice and BRC, rejecting reliance on CRCL moisture results. The case was remanded for fresh computation of refund and interest.
The Tribunal held that confiscation of all seized betel nuts was unjustified, as only a documented portion belonged to the appellants. Revenue was directed to release 150 kgs fit for consumption.
The Tribunal held that the late filing fines imposed on the importer were unjustified due to ICEGATE system malfunction and pandemic-related delays. Relief was granted as the delay was not wilful.
The Tribunal ruled that loss of sugar due to Cyclone Roanu entitles the SEZ unit to remission of customs duty. Penalties and fines imposed earlier were set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation and differential duty based on Air Cargo Complex imports and post parcel valuation were without legal authority. The order imposing penalties and confiscation was set aside.
The Tribunal ruled that electronic records used to allege undervaluation were inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 138C. As the main evidence failed, duty demand and penalties were quashed.
The Tribunal held that Notification 32/2006 allowed the goods to be imported despite earlier restrictions. Confiscation and penalties were quashed as the imports were not restricted goods.
CESTAT Allahabad held that demand made in respect of works contract services provide to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is not sustainable since the services are provided to Government Authority and the same are exempted in terms of Notification 25/2012-ST.
Authorities determined that the imported device aligned with excluded serial items relating to optical transport systems, leading to denial of duty concession. The ruling underscores the importance of circular-based product identification.
