CESTAT Chennai held that delay of 20 days in passing review order without extension order of the Board is not condonable. Accordingly, order passed by Commissioner of Customs (A) upheld.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be imposed in the absence of any evidence that there was fraudulent export of goods. Accordingly, appeal allowed and penalty set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-determination of transaction value merely on the basis of emails of quotations of different supplier cannot be sustained since there is absolutely no evidence for rejection of transaction value.
CESTAT Delhi held that confiscation of goods justified as Pan Masala and Gutkha were clandestinely manufactured and cleared under different brands without authorization. Accordingly, order upheld and appeals dismissed.
The assessee’s application, which was filed on 9-2-2017, was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and later by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that it was submitted beyond the six-month deadline stipulated under Section 102(3) of the Act.
Delhi CESTAT in the abovementioned matter set-aside order confirming suspension of custom broker license of the appellant and directed that the original license and all the F/G/H cards, if already surrendered to the Customs, shall be returned to the appellant.
ITAT Raipur held that the appeal is treated as withdrawn due to initiation of proceedings under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (VSVS 2024) by filing of Form 1. Thus, present appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
The CESTAT Delhi has ruled in favor of Rambagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd., allowing full Cenvat credit on management consultancy services, citing judicial precedents.
CESTAT Mumbai rules Shipping Corporation of India not liable for service tax on bunker and water charges provided during vessel delivery, clarifying it as a supply of goods, not service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that County of Origin certificate verified by the relevant authority is sufficient proof of origin criteria and hence denial of exemption benefit under Notification No. 99/2011-Cus dated 09.11.2011 not justifiable.
