CESTAT Mumbai held that re-deployment of auxiliary equipment post completion of project doesn’t amount to violation of Project Import Regulations, 1986. Accordingly, appeal allowed and impugned order is set aside.
CESTAT Chennai refers appeal to President for a Special Bench, finding the same Customs order was challenged across multiple Benches, invoking the principle of comity.
CESTAT Delhi held that the viewing card/smart card inserted into the set top box of DTH service provider is a good in itself and is not a part of the set top box. Hence, viewing cards is classifiable under CTI 8523 52 90 and not under 8529 90 90.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that non-filing of Ex-Bond BoE for clearance from customs bonded warehouse to SEZ is merely procedural lapse hence confiscation u/s. 113(i) not justifiable since there is no malafide intent. Accordingly, appeals are partly allowed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules it has jurisdiction over foreign currency seizure, distinguishing it from baggage. Orders release of seized currency and directs lower penalties on family members.
CESTAT Chennai held that burden of showing that the goods are marketable is on department. Since department has not discharged its burden of showing that the goods i.e. sugar invert syrup is marketable no excise duty can be levied. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that benefit of concessional rate vide notification no. 62/2004-Cus dated 12.05.2004 is denied on import of rectangular shape gold bars as manufacturers or refiners serial numbers not found engraved on the gold bars.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 rightly imposed on courier agency for lack of due diligence since red sandalwood was mis-declared as copper wire in export consignment. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed.
CESTAT Mumbai sets aside order against Hawkins Cookers on alleged wrongful CENVAT credit of ₹68 lakh, remanding case to adjudicating authority for fresh review.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty cannot be imposed merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions. Accordingly, imposition of penalty u/s. 112(a) of the Customs Act set aside in absence of corroborative evidence proving appellant’s role in mis-declaration/ over-invoicing.
