CESTAT Delhi held that confiscation of goods justified as Pan Masala and Gutkha were clandestinely manufactured and cleared under different brands without authorization. Accordingly, order upheld and appeals dismissed.
The assessee’s application, which was filed on 9-2-2017, was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and later by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that it was submitted beyond the six-month deadline stipulated under Section 102(3) of the Act.
Delhi CESTAT in the abovementioned matter set-aside order confirming suspension of custom broker license of the appellant and directed that the original license and all the F/G/H cards, if already surrendered to the Customs, shall be returned to the appellant.
ITAT Raipur held that the appeal is treated as withdrawn due to initiation of proceedings under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (VSVS 2024) by filing of Form 1. Thus, present appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
The CESTAT Delhi has ruled in favor of Rambagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd., allowing full Cenvat credit on management consultancy services, citing judicial precedents.
CESTAT Mumbai rules Shipping Corporation of India not liable for service tax on bunker and water charges provided during vessel delivery, clarifying it as a supply of goods, not service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that County of Origin certificate verified by the relevant authority is sufficient proof of origin criteria and hence denial of exemption benefit under Notification No. 99/2011-Cus dated 09.11.2011 not justifiable.
CESTAT Delhi upheld the inclusion of metal lease charges in assessable value since the same was paid as a condition of sale and not paid in nature of interest. Accordingly, differential duty demand confirmed.
In the present case, the revenue has merely re-assessed the value on the basis of the statement of Shri Jhunjhunwala, which is not the prescribed requirement for reassessment of the value of the imported goods.
CESTAT Delhi cancels a ₹2 crore penalty on Rajesh Khosla, former MMTC-Pamp MD, ruling that mere non-disclosure without deliberate intent to evade customs duty is insufficient for Section 112(a)(ii) penalty.
