CESTAT Ahmedabad held that price cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of DGOV circular unless until some strong material is found to support the price which was fetched from DGOV circular. Matter remitted to the Assessing Authority.
CESTAT Bangalore held that differential duty demand u/s. 28(4) of the Customs Act sustainable as investigation clearly established that product ‘Brush Cutter’ mis-declared and cleared as ‘Power Operated Reapers’.
CESTAT Bangalore held that there is no requirement to make declaration of MRP in bill of entry under notification no. 21/2012-Cus. Dated 17.03.2012 granting exemption of 4% of SAD.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that wood roughly squared and half squared and not further manufactured is classifiable under tariff heading 4403.99 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under tariff heading 44.07.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that oil in bunker tanks is integral to vessels, affecting customs duty. Appeals allowed following Supreme Court’s decision.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejection of refund claim on procedural grounds of non-furnishing of documents required to process the claim in invalidated. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored to original authority.
Consequently, the assessable value and duty must be redetermined. The goods were correctly held to be liable for confiscation under section 111(m) but were not actually confiscated nor any redemption fine was imposed.
There was no indication of action for cancellation having taken by DGFT authorities or any information provided by Revenue that an action was later taken by DGFT authorities.
CESTAT Bangalore held that no excise duty is leviable on the subject goods i.e. [imported ‘Insoluble Sulphur’] and therefore no additional duty will be levied. Accordingly, levy of CVD @10% unsustainable.
Reclassification of AC remote components made by assessee was accepted as specific Chapter Notes and Section Notes were to be preferred over General Interpretative Rules while classifying product.
