CESTAT Chennai held that order passed without adhering to timelines specified in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 [CBLR] cannot be sustained. Accordingly, consequential relief granted to customs broker and order revoking customs broker licence set aside.
CESTAT Delhi ruled that ocean freight for imported goods is not liable for service tax, citing a Gujarat High Court decision that the tax is extraterritorial.
CESTAT Mumbai held that unreported cenvat credit doesn’t lapse merely the same is not shown in ST-3 return. Thus, denomination as anything other than procedural lapse in not reporting the existence of such credit, the impugned order cannot survive.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand of anti-dumping duty in terms of notification no. 15/2014-CUS(ABD) cannot be sustained since no evidences established that the goods were either manufactured or supplied from China or were routed through Taiwan after being supplied from China.
An investigation was initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi on the import of silk-fabrics from China by other importers and the premises of M/s. Purnima Enterprises at Chennai and M/s. Om Fabrics at Bangalore were searched.
According to the department, the overvalued export was used by the exporter to fraudulently procure DEPB scrips from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and subsequently these DEPB scrips were sold in the open market and were thereafter used by companies to import goods without payment of duty.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty u/s. 114 of the Customs Act can be levied only if the goods are held liable to confiscation u/s. 113 of the Customs Act. Here, as the confiscation cannot be sustained, penalty u/s. 114 of the Customs Act cannot also be sustained.
CESTAT Kolkata held that confiscation of gold bar not justified since the smuggled nature of the gold has not been established by the department and the appellant has produced evidence of purchase of the gold from domestic sources. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules Synergy Seaports eligible for a Rs 1.85 Cr refund, citing Supreme Court’s ultra vires judgment and CGST Act’s Section 142(3) on time limits.
CESTAT Mumbai held that imposition of penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act not justified in absence of any dummy export or any criminal intent involving evasion of duty. Accordingly, provisions are not applicable where export goods have actually been exported.
