CESTAT Chennai held that Custom House Agent (CHA) cannot be expected to examine and ensure the nature of the goods in the consignment. Accordingly, penalty u-s 114 of the Customs Act cannot be levied on CHA alleging that they didn’t ensure correct classification of the goods.
Jansons Textile Processors Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Salem (CESTAT Chennai) The facts of the matter are that appellants are manufacturers of cotton textile fabrics and made ups. They were clearing some of the final products on payment of duty as per Notification No.29/2004-CE and claimed exemption under notification No.30/2004-CE on other products. […]
Komatsu India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) It is not the case of the Revenue that what the appellant claimed was the refund of the duty paid and there is also no dispute that the appellant claimed only the security deposit made. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. […]
CESTAT Chennai held that imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) on the customs broker alleging mis-declaration of goods is unsustainable as customs broker cannot be expected to have knowledge about the goods in the container as there is no dispute with regard to KYC document of the importer.
When the question is considered in the larger perspective, it is clear that there is no violation as alleged, more so because the PSI certificate issued by the Branch was subsequently ratified by the DGFT (as reflected in paragraph 25 of the Order-in-Original), which serves the purpose.
Facts reveal that service tax in regard to impugned service already been paid to Government, department cannot collect service tax again on impugned service.
CESTAT, Chennai, ruled that customs brokers cannot be held liable for the undervaluation of goods. The court held that the valuation of goods is determined by the contract between the exporter and importer, and customs brokers do not have any influence in this matter.
CESTAT restore the matter to the file of the Adjudicating Authority who shall pass a speaking order as per law after granting reasonable opportunities to the appellant and since the matter pertains to an earlier period which has travelled twice before this forum, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a de novo order within a time-frame of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order by the respective Commissionerate.
CESTAT Chennai held that conditions as prescribed under Board’s Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 is duly complied and accordingly conversion from free shipping bills to Advance Authorization shipping bills needs to be allowed.
P. Natesan & Co. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai held that exemption of service tax as per section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 is available only if the contract is entered prior to 01.03.2015. Here, contract is entered on 19.03.2015 and hence exemption not available. Facts- The appellant […]
