Behag Overseas Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Misdeclaration of goods and attempt to export such goods is punishable under Section 114 of the Customs Act. A Customs House Agent, who is a party to the mis-declaration, is liable to pay penalty. Facts- On specific intelligence, it was alleged that red sanders log are being […]
India Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT held that that the credit on outward transportation from the place of removal upto the buyers’ premises / dealers for period upto 31.03.2008 is eligible. FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER The above matters have come up for hearing as per […]
Sun Sea Shipping Agency Vs The Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) The goods are counterfeit and have been confiscated. However, penalty u/s 112(a) being on higher side is reduced Facts- The assessee filed a Bill of Entry dated 22.12.2017 through their Customs Broker M/s. Sun Sea Shipping Agency for the clearance of import consignment in […]
When the appellants have been given permission to clear the goods in DTA by the Development Commissioner (DC), the department cannot then vaguely allege that they are not similar goods.
Hivelm Industries Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) It is not in dispute that the deemed export did not attract any Excise Duty and hence, it is not the duty of the appellant / taxpayer to repeatedly plead before the authorities that the project in which it was involved was a deemed […]
Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts are that the appellant had imported certain goods under Advance Authorization Scheme vide various licenses. As the Advance Authorization expired, the appellants were unable to fulfill their export obligation as stipulated in these licenses. They have paid appropriate duty and interest on the quantity […]
CESTAT held that the assistance rendered by the appellants to their member farmers in auctioning their agricultural produce does not tantamount to rendering any service classifiable under ‘Auctioneers’ Service’.
Gold bar with foreign marking, source of which is not explained, is liable for absolute confiscation since the same would amount to the importation of a prohibited goods.
Department denied refund of Pre-deposit for appeal on the ground that dispute related to service tax whereas pre-deposit was made under Excise Duty.
BAPL Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The Tribunal in the case of Shree Rohini Enterprises – 2017 (346) ELT 461 (Tri-Ahmd.) held that value of deemed export is to be treated as export sale determined on FOB value of export. The same was confirmed by the Supreme Court reported […]
