The dispute concerned whether food sold at cinema counters involved a taxable service. The Tribunal held such transactions to be pure sales of goods and set aside the service tax demand with consequential relief.
The Tribunal held that delayed PIMS registration, when completed before clearance, is a procedural lapse. Confiscation and penalty were set aside as the import was not in substantive violation of policy.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of Customs Broker licence justified since it was involved in filing benami shipping bills in the name of some other IEC holder with intend to export prohibited goods. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Delhi held that since DGFT [Directorate General of Foreign Trade] has issued EODC [Export obligation Discharge Certificate] under EPCG [Export Promotion Capital Goods] hence customs authority cannot initiate proceeding demanding duty/ imposing penalty.
CESTAT held that once goods are confiscated and redeemed, they cannot be confiscated again. The ruling nullified confiscation and penalties imposed on a subsequent purchaser.
CESTAT held that a Customs Broker cannot be penalised merely because the exporter mis-declared goods or value. Liability under CBLR requires independent proof of broker’s breach of obligations.
Tribunal held that amounts incurred as authorized pure-agent payments could not form part of taxable value. The ruling clarifies that failure to interpret Rule 5(2) correctly invalidated the demand.
The Tribunal ruled that electronic records used to allege undervaluation were inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 138C. As the main evidence failed, duty demand and penalties were quashed.
The Tribunal held that Notification 32/2006 allowed the goods to be imported despite earlier restrictions. Confiscation and penalties were quashed as the imports were not restricted goods.
The Tribunal held that reassessing value a second time without fresh evidence was unsustainable and set aside the duty, interest, and penalty demand.
