CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of harsh punishment of revocation of Customs Broker Licence in absence of any active or passive facilitation in mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods unjustified.
CESTAT Bangalore held that benefit of notification no. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 available in respect of molasses which is captively consumed for the manufacture of rectified spirit as rectified spirit is a dutiable excisable goods.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant is not liable to pay an amount equal to 10%/6%/5% of the value of exempted goods as proportionate Cenvat credit on common input service attributed to the exempted final product already reversed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand alleging undervaluation of imported goods merely on the basis of retracted statements without corroborative evidences is unsustainable in law.
Exploring the key details of the GKN Driveline (India) Ltd vs CCE case at CESTAT Chandigarh, and its impact on the reversal of Cenvat Credit under Rule 3(5B).
Analyzing the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd. vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman case, focusing on Cenvat re-credit, suo moto reversal, and legal implications.
Understand why a mere delay in verification isn’t enough to allege fact suppression under Section 11A. Intent matters. Learn more in this analysis.
Detailed analysis of the CESTAT Mumbai’s decision to quash a show cause notice with contradictory statements in Maheshwari Transport vs. Commissioner of CE & ST case.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in Madhu Silica Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Ahmedabad that proper inquiry is required for classifying Malvern Master Sizer under Customs Tariff.
CESTAT Bangalore held that top gas is refuse like dross and skimmings which are merely scum thrown out in the manufacture of aluminium sheets and have been held not to be “manufactured” goods.
