CESTAT Chennai held that when goods are held not confiscatable under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, then it can be reasonably held that the import was not prohibited.
Sree Rajendra Textiles Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) There is no dispute that after adjudication / assessment, the appellant did remit the CVD plus BCD and the same was not under protest and, as could be seen from the pleadings as well as the orders of both the lower authorities, the said adjudication / […]
Held that penalty u/s 112(a) imposed on customs broker is justified as importer of undeclared goods and undervalued goods is not traceable and the address as well as GST registration reflected in the documents are found to be fake.
There is no dispute that the MS items were used for fabricating and installing paint plant within the premises of the appellant. The said paint plant is also integral to the manufacturing activity. After appreciating the facts and applying the decision in the case of India Cements Ltd. (supra), CESTAT hold that the credit availed on MS items has to be allowed to the appellant.
Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs Pankaj Electronics (CESTAT Chennai) Once the goods have been released after inspection by authorized Chartered Engineer, as has been noted by the Hon’ble High Court, there cannot be any contrary view possible in the present appeal. Ten years down the time line after release of the goods per direction of […]
CESTAT held that Axe Brand Universal Oil classifiable under Chapter 30 as it is similar to Amrutanjan, Vicks, Tiger Balm which were held to be classifiable under Chapter 30 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise – 1995 (77) ELT 500 (SC).
CESTAT held that denial of credit alleging that invoices mention the name of the original importer is too technical and cannot be accepted.
Neha Agrawal Carboline India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Facts: i. The appellant had exported ‘Paint for fire proofing THERMO Lag 3000 SP’ vide 2 shipping bills dated 18.04.2018 and 02.05.2018. ii. Two Advance authorisations (AA) dated 09.04.2018 & 02.05.2018 were obtained for duty free import of raw materials with an export […]
Revenue has only alleged about the switching of samples, but has nowhere established how and where the switching had taken place since, admittedly, right from day one, the goods were at the godown of the CFS, the accessibility of which may not be that easy.
ITAT condones Delay in Appeal filing as appellant could not file appeal within time stipulated due to death of his counsel
