CESTAT sets aside customs demand on Arktron Electronics, holding that aluminium-based copper laminates used in MCPCBs qualify for duty exemption.
CESTAT Chennai held that active collusion of appellant i.e. Custom House Agent [CHA] with High Sea Seller not proved hence penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 unwarranted in absence of intention to evade payment of duty.
CESTAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty under section 114(i) of the Customs Act for attempting smuggling of Red Sander woods unwarranted due to lack of valid evidences. Accordingly, penalty is dropped and appeal allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the recovery proceedings initiated by the Customs authorities under section 28AAA of the Customs Act are not sustainable as DGFT authorities have not cancelled MEIS licenses in question.
CESTAT Delhi rules BHEL is entitled to 6% interest on delayed CENVAT refund, overturning Commissioner (Appeals) decision.
CESTAT Kolkata has reduced penalties for two gold carriers, acknowledging their role as mere carriers and citing a precedent for leniency in similar smuggling cases.
CESTAT Kolkata set aside the revocation of Shyamal Kumar Ghosh’s F-Card and Rs. 50,000 penalty, ruling his card was inoperative and charges unsubstantiated.
CESTAT Kolkata held that charge of clandestine removal and duty demand thereon merely on the loose sheets and pocket dairy without any corroborative evidence cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Until the goods are appropriated by the stockyards/warehouses from out of the stocks available with them, they continue in the inventory of the stockyards/warehouses. Thus, supplies made to the stockyards/warehouses are merely stock transfers.
CESTAT Mumbai remands CENVAT credit refund case for 100% EOU, Everyday Health, for verification of manually filed ST-3 returns and input service invoices.
