CESTAT Chennai held that boiler in unassembled form is removed in several lots on different dates doesn’t mean that parts only and not the whole boiler is cleared from factory. The parts are to be classified as complete machine under 8402.10. Hence, exemption vide Sl.No.84 of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 as amended duly available.
CESTAT Chennai allowed the assessee’s appeal, stating that the demand of duty with interest was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal held that the SCN issued after the appeal stage lacked validity and that the demand of duty and interest was not justified. The department’s appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT Chennai acknowledged the procedural violation by the appellant but recognized that the goods underwent 100% examination, revealing no banned substances. Considering this and the appellant’s cost and delay in the clearance process, the CESTAT Chennai found the imposed redemption fine and penalties excessive. Therefore, the CESTAT Chennai reduced the redemption fine to INR 1,00,000 and the penalty to INR 50,000.
CESTAT Chennai held that when no time limit is prescribed under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 the department cannot reject the request for conversion of shipping bill.
Explore CESTAT Chennai’s decision in Emerson Process Management Chennai case. Learn about duty on intermediate goods, Rule 6(6) of CCR 2004, and implications for manufacturers
The case between the Commissioner of Customs (Air) and RBR Knit Process Pvt Ltd, regarding the eligibility for custom duty exemption of imported membrane systems, concluded with a favorable verdict for the latter by CESTAT Chennai.
The CESTAT in Chennai ruled in favor of the department, classifying Samsung Galaxy Tabs as ADP Machines/Tablet Computers rather than Mobile Phones, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) prior decision.
CESTAT Chennai held that exemption of Basic Customs Duty under notification no. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 read with notification no. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 available as there is no violation of conditions. Further, demand proposed on misconception of facts and law is unjustified.
CESTAT Chennai resolves an issue related to the imposition of service tax on bank charges deducted by foreign banks, setting a precedent that upholds the rights of exporters in India.
Insightful analysis of the recent case between the Commissioner of Customs and Doosan Infracore India Pvt. Ltd., where CESTAT Chennai dismissed the appeal of the revenue department on the sanction of the SAD refund claim.
