CESTAT Chennai held that air compressors used in car air conditioners are correctly classifiable under CTH 8414 8011 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Appeal allowed and duty demand set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Social Welfare Surcharge would be nil in case where the aggregate of customs duties is zero. Thus, Social Welfare Surcharge not payable when Basic Customs Duty payable is zero.
CESTAT Bangalore held that benefit of notification no. 20/2006 dated 01.03.2006 and notification no. 21/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 not available in case of import of garment accessories. Accordingly, 4% SAD leviable.
The CESTAT ruled that interest on refundable pre-deposits is mandatory, regardless of whether it’s claimed, in the India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. case.
CESTAT Mumbai held that appellants Customs Broker (CB) was not handling the export consignment hence it cannot be said that they had violated Regulation 10(d) and 10(n). Thus, revocation of license unjustified.
The Commissioner (Appeals), however, proceed to imagine grounds for enhancement of the value and dealt with them. This exercise was really not required to be undertaken by the Commissioner (Appeals).
CESTAT Delhi held that interest is payable on amount deposited during the course of investigation and refunded back due to NIL. Interest is payable at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit till the date of refund.
CESTAT ruled extended demand period unsustainable without proven intent to evade tax, setting aside Rs. 11 Cr excise duty demand on Kanoria Energy & Infrastructure.
CESTAT Ahmedabad exempts NJ India Invest Pvt. Ltd. from service tax on mutual fund distribution incentives, magazine ads, and vocational training for sub-distributors.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejection of request for amendment of shipping bills u/s. 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of delay unjustified as legal provisions doesn’t prescribe any specific time limit.
