CESTAT rules on S. Kantilal & Company’s appeal, setting a legal precedent that redemption fines cannot exceed the market value of mis-declared goods.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that Hubergroup India is entitled to a cash refund of accumulated Education Cess credit, citing that the abolition of the levy doesn’t negate the right to a refund of legally earned Cenvat credit.
CESTAT Chennai held that claiming an exemption or a certain classification on a bill of entry is not mis-declaration or suppression of facts. Accordingly, demand for duty for the extended period or imposition of fine and penalty, for misdeclaration or suppression of fact not sustained.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that exemption notification no. 57/2000 issued u/s. 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 prevails over CBEC circular and hence since exemption notification does not stipulate that only imported gold should be used to manufacture goods for export there is no such requirement.
CESTAT Chennai held that Adjudicating authority has taken lenient view by levying penalty on Customs Broker for allowing use of license to unauthorised person and not revoking Customs Broker License. Accordingly, order of adjudicating authority upheld.
CESTAT Chennai held that Clear Float Glass is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 7005 1090. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that the DEPB scrips issued by the DGFT cannot be held ab initio null and void by the DRI or any other Customs Officers. Accordingly, confirmation of the demand under section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the impugned order is without any authority of law.
CESTAT Delhi held rejection of refund that too on the bais of raising the issue of classification is against the principles of judicial protocol. The order is accordingly, set aside and appeal is allowed.
The CESTAT in Mumbai rules on Spacewood Furnishers’ appeal, finding that the appeal period starts from the date of a speaking order, not the bill of entry.
There was no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner enhancing the value of the touch media device by including the value of the licence software imported subsequently and confirmed the differential duty demanded with interest and imposition of penalty.
