CESTAT Chennai held that classification of Amprolium HCL under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 2933 9900 upheld. Accordingly, duty and interest as ordered is upheld.
CESTAT Chennai held that denial of DEPB scrip benefit to innocent transferee importers of fraudulently obtained licence by original licence holder not justifiable since licence was not cancelled by appropriate authority at the time of import of goods. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] has jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice [SCN] in the case of drawback. Accordingly, plea of appellant of DRI officers lacked jurisdiction failed.
CESTAT Chennai returns N.R. Colours Ltd.’s SAD refund case to original authority for re-evaluation, citing an incomplete Chartered Accountant’s certificate as the reason for initial rejection.
CESTAT Chennai held that merely stating the probability of revenue succeeding in their appeal, is a bald statement which cannot be stated to be a reasonable plea for granting stay of order. Hence, stay not granted since sufficient cause not shown.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT Credit in respect of service tax paid on input services i.e. Management or Business Consultant’s Service’ and ‘Business Support Service’ is duly eligible. Accordingly, disallowance of credit set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that the classification of the goods cannot be said to be one involving suppression of facts and willful mis-statement. Hence, invocation of extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of Customs Act not justified.
CESTAT Chennai held that affixation of MRP on packages of imported goods containing quantity of more than 25 Kgs is not mandatory. Hence, differential duty demand for non-affixation of MRP cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Chennai held that order passed without adhering to timelines specified in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 [CBLR] cannot be sustained. Accordingly, consequential relief granted to customs broker and order revoking customs broker licence set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that active collusion of appellant i.e. Custom House Agent [CHA] with High Sea Seller not proved hence penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 unwarranted in absence of intention to evade payment of duty.
