CESTAT Chennai held that ‘wheel loaders’ are classifiable as ‘front-end shovel loaders’ and hence are covered under Customs Tariff Heading 8429 5100. However, demand for only normal period is sustained and demand for extended period is set aside.
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) could not be denied merely because commercial invoices did not carry the endorsement required under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, when all other substantive requirements were satisfied.
CESTAT Chennai held that for the purpose of charging export duty the assessment of Iron Ore for determination of Fe contents shall be made on the basis of Wet Metric Ton for period prior to 1st May 2022. Accordingly, appeals allowed and orders set aside.
CESTAT held that mere invoicing through a related foreign entity does not justify loading of assessable value under Customs law. Since no direct imports from related suppliers were established, value enhancement was rightly set aside.
Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deciding classification without first addressing limitation under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, and remanded the case for fresh consideration on the time-bar issue alone.
CESTAT upholds the denial of EPCG benefit for used machinery but reduces the redemption fine and sets aside the Section 114A penalty due to bona fide belief.
CESTAT remands Rane Holdings’ SAP software import case for fresh adjudication, citing doubts over the appellant’s status as the liable importer, value payment, and differing software types.
Summary of the CESTAT Chennai judgment on customs classification dispute. The court emphasized that classification requires best evidence, like a test report or contract details, not mere reliance on general public domain catalogues, especially when the crucial distinguishing feature (sheathing) is in dispute.
CESTAT Chennai rules Service Tax cannot be levied on the TDS amount paid by an Indian company on behalf of a foreign service provider, as TDS is not ‘consideration’ for the service.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund of CVD paid on account of EDI system glitch needs to be examined in terms of the Act and relevant judgements passed in this regard. Accordingly, matter remanded back to Original Authority for de novo adjudication.
