CESTAT Allahabad quashes Service Tax demand against a contractor, ruling that reliance solely on unverified ITR and Form 26AS data is insufficient and invalidates the extended limitation period.
CESTAT Delhi held that proceedings to recover the drawback under Rules 16/16A of the Drawback Rules are in the nature of execution proceedings hence they cannot be used to modify the value in the Shipping Bills.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act can duly be imposed for mis-declaration in imports. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 30,00,000 imposed u/s. 114AA is modest since the same doesn’t exceed five time the value of goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that since amendment u/s. 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 has not come into force, the present anti-dumping appeal would be maintainable before the Tribunal u/s. 9C of the Customs Tariff Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund of CVD paid on account of EDI system glitch needs to be examined in terms of the Act and relevant judgements passed in this regard. Accordingly, matter remanded back to Original Authority for de novo adjudication.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for violations of overvaluation committed by exporters. Accordingly, order revoking license of Customs Broker cannot be sustained. In the result, appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Silver Granules are not notified item under section 123 of the Customs Act and revenue has not brought in any evidence to established that Silver Granules are smuggled in nature. Hence, confiscation set aside and appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that photography flashlights which produces a flash for a very short duration are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 9006 99 00 and not under 9405 40 10. Accordingly, Principal Commissioner cannot discard order of Commissioner (A) and Joint Commissioner to reclassify the goods.
CESTAT Bangalore held that goods imported and cleared to industrial consumers are not leviable to MRP based assessment under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and impugned order set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that DGCEI appointed as officers of Customs and hence authorize to demand differential duty in terms of section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 during the material period and there was no infirmity in the SCN.
