Equipment imported for mall amusement facilities was confirmed as valid under tariff heading 9506, allowing preferential duty, as customs misapplied classification rules and relied on non-statutory documents.
CESTAT Chennai held that a notice under Section 28(6) of the Customs Act is mandatory before confirming short payment of duty or penalty, setting aside the order against L&T.
CESTAT Chandigarh ruled that Punjab Cricket Association was not liable for service tax on a tournament subsidy received from Procam International. The Tribunal held the payment related to sponsorship services, where tax liability rests with the recipient. The service tax demand was set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata upheld redemption fines on A.K. Jain Sales & Marketing for importing yogurt-flavoured milk drinks through Changrabandha, a non-authorized livestock import port.
Royalty paid for technical know-how was not a ‘condition of sale’ merely because it was included in the value of imported goods as it pertained to post-importation activities relating to the manufacture of finished goods in India and was not a condition of sale of imported components.
CESTAT Delhi held that once goods are exported, drawback cannot be denied even if alleged forgery or diversion by the foreign buyer occurs later.
CESTAT Delhi held that electronic evidence from an unsealed CPU without a Section 139C certificate cannot form the basis of customs assessment. It ruled that DRI’s revaluation of imports was invalid as goods were already assessed by the proper officer. All duty demands, fines, and penalties were quashed.
CESTAT Mumbai rules that mis-declaration under the Foreign Trade Policy cannot attract penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act and allows Ajanta Pharma’s appeal.
Penalties imposed on appellant and its Managing Director for allegedly availing excess duty drawback by understating freight charges in export shipping bills was set aside as appellant had not made any mis-declaration in the shipping bills filed by them, they had not rendered the export goods liable for confiscation.
CESTAT Ahmedabad remanded a case to reconsider exemption on imported bioequivalence drugs for clinical trials after finding factual errors regarding Form 44 filing.
