The goods were re-exported in April 2005 after Customs clearance. Customs authorities issued a show-cause notice alleging non compliance with Notification No.158/95 and demanded duties and interest.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license without providing relied upon documents and statements by the Inquiry Officer is against the principles of natural justice and hence the order deserves to be set aside.
Classification cannot be changed merely because 8 digit classification has been introduced, CESTAT sets aside demand of differential duty along with penalties
CESTAT Mumbai set aside CENVAT Credit denial for Mangal Singh Bros., ruling that duty acceptance on final products justifies credit claim.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 duly imposed since the appellant had intentionally mis-declared the nature of the goods in the Bill of Entry (BOE).
CESTAT Kolkata ruled that the CRCL report cannot be the basis for export duty on iron ore fines, confirming contractual terms as the decisive factor.
CESTAT Ahmedabad allows exemption from anti-dumping duty on imported PVC resin due to documentary evidence, resolving manufacturer name discrepancy.
CESTAT Mumbai quashes ₹1,00,000 penalty on co-noticee under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, citing lack of evidence linking him to DEEC scheme violations. Read full order.
Damodar Nayak Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) (CESTAT Mumbai) Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) restored an appeal after two years, observing that the appellant was not served with a notice of the final hearing due to an incorrect address provided by the previous advocate. The tribunal noted that the earlier counsel […]
CESTAT Delhi held that declared price is price for delivery at the time and place of importation unless contrary proved by department. Since onus not discharged, the declared price remains unimpeached.
