CESTAT Chennai held that for the purpose of charging export duty the assessment of Iron Ore for determination of Fe contents shall be made on the basis of Wet Metric Ton for period prior to 1st May 2022. Accordingly, appeals allowed and orders set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that refund claim of excess CVD paid after completion of one year from date of payment of duty as well as the date of relevant judgement is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
CESTAT Delhi held that Cap Sub Assembly for Door Outside Handle 423205-11480 is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 87082900 as contented by the Department. Accordingly, benefit under notification no. 46/2011 Customs not admissible.
CESTAT held that mere invoicing through a related foreign entity does not justify loading of assessable value under Customs law. Since no direct imports from related suppliers were established, value enhancement was rightly set aside.
CESTAT Allahabad dismissed an appeal against the confiscation of gold concealed in a passenger’s baggage, explicitly citing Section 129A(1) of Customs Act which bars Tribunal from hearing such cases.
Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deciding classification without first addressing limitation under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, and remanded the case for fresh consideration on the time-bar issue alone.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that a service tax demand cannot be dismissed merely because payment was made in advance and remanded the matter for verification of the period of service receipt.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside an order that rejected an exporter’s supplementary claim for Swatch Bharat Cess (SBC) refund. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules has no bar on filing multiple refund claims for the same period.
CESTAT Delhi set aside an appellate order, holding that the time limit for filing an appeal starts from the date the rectification of mistake order (Section 74) is passed. The appeal was therefore deemed filed within the prescribed limitation period.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that payments received by players for playing cricket are not taxable under Business Support Service, upholding the Commissioner’s decision that only promotional income, if any, could attract tax.
