The CESTAT Ahmedabad remands the claim of Rs. 1,57,818/- to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration based on new evidence.
Flextronics Technologies India Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) In the case of Flextronics Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, CESTAT Chennai examined the classification and duty exemption of connectors imported by the appellant. Flextronics filed an appeal against an order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), Chennai, which upheld the […]
CESTAT Chennai held that the Investigation Report is administrative and fact finding in nature as it does not purport to decide the lis or contest between the contending parties by a statutory authority. Thus, investigation report is not appealable order.
CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of Basic Customs Duty BCD under notification no. 25/2005 eligible in case of import of ‘Digital Still Image Video Cameras’. Accordingly, appeal allowed with consequential benefits.
Glass Beads (rockies) were imported against bills of entry. Some quantity which is covered by first of bills was re-assessed at US$ 1.60/Kg while consignment in subsequent shipments was re-assessed at US$ 1.75/Kg.
CESTAT Kolkata rules in Vedanta Ltd. case: CRCL’s delayed test report after 218 days invalidates export duty assessment, favoring refund claim for iron ore exports.
He observed that appellant furnished fake and bogus bills of purchase from purported buyers other than actual suppliers in connection with the export of overvalued goods to claim ineligible drawback.
CESTAT Kolkata rules in favor of Samudera Shipping, stating export occurred with LEO clearance, deleting Rs. 2,00,000 penalty imposed under Section 114 of Customs Act.
Goods (tyres) imported by assessee was without any BIS markings being in violation of the statutory provisions were not permissible to be imported, and hence they were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act.
As goods were cleared on the bill of entry of the appellant, hence it was made a party by the department. Differential custom duty was demanded jointly and severally from BGH and appellant.
