CESTAT Kolkata rules in Susanta Kumar Sahoo vs. Commissioner of Customs, setting aside a dismissal that cited a delay. The tribunal found the appeal was filed on time.
CESTAT Chennai held that merely stating the probability of revenue succeeding in their appeal, is a bald statement which cannot be stated to be a reasonable plea for granting stay of order. Hence, stay not granted since sufficient cause not shown.
CESTAT Delhi held that ‘paytm’ soundbox is primarily meant to work with 2G device and not 4G LTE complaint device hence eligible for concessional rate of 10% basic customs duty [BCD] vide notification no. 57/2017 dated 30.06.2017.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT Credit in respect of service tax paid on input services i.e. Management or Business Consultant’s Service’ and ‘Business Support Service’ is duly eligible. Accordingly, disallowance of credit set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that regulation 10(n) doesn’t require Customs Broker to keep continuous surveillance on client to ensure that client operates from that address and has not changed his operations. Accordingly, order revoking customs broker license set aside.
Car imported into India remained “new” for customs purposes even if it was registered abroad before export, provided the registration was a legal requirement and the car was unused, therefore, the question of demanding any duty short paid on account of re-determination of the assessable value did not arise.
Held that if the transaction value (FOB value) is so high, that the drawback due on the goods exceeds the market value of the goods, then, as per section 76(1) (b) of the Customs Act, no drawback shall be allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that the classification of the goods cannot be said to be one involving suppression of facts and willful mis-statement. Hence, invocation of extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of Customs Act not justified.
The movement of explosives from Maharashtra to company depots in West Bengal and Jharkhand under a running contract with Coal India Ltd. constituted branch transfers under Section 6A of the CST Act and not inter-State sales.
CESTAT Chennai held that affixation of MRP on packages of imported goods containing quantity of more than 25 Kgs is not mandatory. Hence, differential duty demand for non-affixation of MRP cannot be sustained.
