The Tribunal ruled that forfeiture of a customs broker’s security deposit could not stand as the show cause notice was not proven to be issued within the mandatory limitation period. Failure to disclose the offence report date vitiated the proceedings.
CESTAT Chennai held that rejection of refund claim, filed in terms of notification no. 102/2007-Customs, merely for the reason that Chartered Account Certificate is not as per prescribed format is not sustainable since format of Chartered Accountant Certificate as per Public Notice No. 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011 is only suggested format and not a mandatory format.
The issue was whether customs duty could be demanded from a transferee using DFIA licences allegedly obtained by exporter misrepresentation. The Tribunal held that extended limitation cannot apply where no fraud or suppression is alleged against the importer.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act not sustained in absence of proof of mens rea since establishing mens-rea is also a prerequisite to attribute attempt. Accordingly, penalty imposed is deleted.
The Tribunal quashed the duty demand after finding that Customs rejected the declared value without complying with Rule 12. The ruling clarifies that proper reasons, disclosure, and opportunity to rebut are mandatory before enhancing value.
CESTAT held that sending imported goods to a job worker does not violate the non-transfer condition of the Target Plus Scheme. Ownership remaining with the importer was found decisive.
CESTAT Chennai held that Zinc EDTA being used as fertilizers are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 3105 and not under Customs Tariff Heading 2922 4990 as held in impugned order. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
CESTAT held that restricted goods fall within the scope of prohibition when import conditions are not met. While confiscation was sustained, the penalty was reduced as no malafide intent was found.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of Traffic and Transit Management Centers is covered within the ambit of transport terminal, and hence falls within the exclusion category of definition of taxable services of Works Contract Services, and hence the same is not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that order holding appeals to be time-barred is set aside since period spent honestly and diligently by a litigant prosecuting a proceeding before a wrong forum is to be excluded while computing limitation.
