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 […]
CESTAT Chennai held refund claim of service tax paid by mistake eligible as Chartered Accountant certificate stated that the statutory records are examined and the incidence of duty has not been passed on, accordingly doctrine of unjust enrichment doesn’t apply.
The Timberland Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (Appeals) (CESTAT Chennai) In paragraph-7 of the impugned order, the first appellate authority has clearly recorded that the appellant did not submit the Country of Origin Certificate as prescribed, either during the assessment stage or appellate stage. Against this, the learned Consultant would contend that the Bill […]
CESTAT Chennai held that undisputedly the amount of service tax was paid by mistake and Chartered Accountant certificate was submitted certifying that incidence of duty has not been passed on Accordingly refund eligible as not hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment.
