The tribunal concluded that the Commissioner failed to present additional evidence beyond co-accused statements, mirroring the trial court’s findings. Emphasizing the principle of double jeopardy, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, granting victory to Abdul Razak.
Explore the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Rajhans Enterprises: CESTAT’s decision on reassessment for refund of excess customs duty and the legal implications.
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore case of J K Tyre vs Commissioner regarding the validity of excise duty refund appropriation. Detailed analysis of the order and its implications.
CESTAT Bangalore ruling in IBM’s favor: Penalty under Customs Act (Section 114A) equals duty, not duty and interest. Detailed analysis of the case.
Explore CESTAT Bangalore’s ruling on ABB Limited vs Commissioner of Customs. Automatic Voltage Regulators deemed under Electrical Transformers, attracting 20% duty. Full order analysis.
CESTAT Bangalore rules in favor of Access World Wide Cargo, setting aside penalty imposed for alleged violation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations. Detailed analysis and legal insights.
CESTAT Bangalore held that Reflective Glass not found in notification no. 4/2009 dated 06.01.2009 is not exempt from levy of anti-dumping duty. Thus, anti-dumping duty leviable on reflective glass imported from China.
CESTAT Bangalore held that since the smartra immobiliser is only a security device to prevent a vehicle from being stolen it is rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8708 as parts of motor vehicle.
Explore the Tiffins Barytes vs. Commissioner of CE & ST case at CESTAT Bangalore. Learn about the abatement of appeal and its implications under Rule 22.
CESTAT Bangalore held that web cameras are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473 and not under 8525 as web cameras are not digital camera nor it can be considered as a television camera.
