The Tribunal held that an amount paid under protest before adjudication cannot be treated as duty under the Central Excise Act. It ruled that interest at 12% per annum must be paid from the date of deposit until refund.
The Tribunal held that once records were audited and within departmental knowledge, extended limitation under Section 73 could not be invoked again, rendering the demand time-barred.
CESTAT held that dummy export documents prepared for internal charge calculation did not amount to fraud. With no evidence of misuse, penalties on the CFS and its officials were quashed.
The appellate authority rejected the customs appeal solely on limitation, holding it was filed far beyond the maximum period permitted under law. The ruling underscores that statutory timelines are absolute and merits cannot be examined once delay exceeds the condonable limit.
CESTAT Allahabad held that the case of imposition of penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act would be covered under regulation 3 (2) (c) and hence appellant is not eligible for grant of License for Private Warehouse under section 58 of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Allahabad held that finding recorded by Commissioner (A) in earlier round of litigation have attained finality. Accordingly, the attempt to re-agitate the same issue in subsequent proceedings is barred by principles of Res Judicata. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that extended period of limitation is not invocable since alleged inadmissible cenvat credit was duly reflected in the return. Accordingly, demand beyond normal period of limitation set aside.
CESTAT held that goods cannot be confiscated without concrete evidence of illegal import. Local market opinion alone was found insufficient to establish smuggling of non-notified goods.
CESTAT Allahabad held that demand made in respect of works contract services provide to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is not sustainable since the services are provided to Government Authority and the same are exempted in terms of Notification 25/2012-ST.
The Tribunal held that customs authorities lacked legal authority to levy cost recovery charges, rendering the commissioner’s order unsustainable. It directed full refund of charges paid by the custodian.
