The goods were re-exported in April 2005 after Customs clearance. Customs authorities issued a show-cause notice alleging non compliance with Notification No.158/95 and demanded duties and interest.
Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected the benefit of the Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
CESTAT dismisses Access Enterprises’ appeal for exceeding the 325-day statutory limit, citing medical reasons as insufficient for delay condonation.
CESTAT rules traders can claim SAD refund without invoice endorsements as per Notification No. 102/2007-Cus in Avon Cycles Ltd case.
CESTAT condones a 22-day delay in M.M. Saw Mills’ appeal for Special Additional Duty refund and remands the case to the Commissioner for merit review.
CESTAT Bangalore allows Cappithan Agencies appeal, highlighting errors in penalty imposition under CBLR regulations and denying cross-examination rights.
Kriztle Bath and Wellness Pvt. Ltd. wins appeal on MRP declaration, ruling CESTAT finds no obligation to declare MRP in Bill of Entry.
The Commissioner holding that the appellant had resorted to deliberate misdeclaration and utilised the carnet documents to clear the vehicle without payment of duty, held that the car was liable for confiscation u/s. 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT Bangalore held that DLP data projectors having additional facility of video port are classifiable under CTH 8528 6100 and not under 8528 6900 and accordingly, benefit of notification no. 24/2005-Cus dated 01.03.2005 extended to its import.
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’.
