CESTAT Delhi held that photography flashlights which produces a flash for a very short duration are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 9006 99 00 and not under 9405 40 10. Accordingly, Principal Commissioner cannot discard order of Commissioner (A) and Joint Commissioner to reclassify the goods.
Fiberhome India Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that Populated/Loaded/Printed Circuit Boards [PCB] cards are used as parts of OTN equipment and hence are classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90 and not under CTI 8517 62 90. Facts- The appellant manufactures ‘Optical Transport Network’ equipment for supply to the […]
Assessee-company provided software-led IT and infrastructure management services. To facilitate its business, it entered into an End-User License Agreement (EULA) with SAP India Pvt. Ltd. for a non-exclusive, perpetual license to use SAP’s proprietary software and documentation. SAP India is a wholly owned subsidiary of SAP AG, Germany.
CESTAT Delhi held that the viewing card/smart card inserted into the set top box of DTH service provider is a good in itself and is not a part of the set top box. Hence, viewing cards is classifiable under CTI 8523 52 90 and not under 8529 90 90.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 rightly imposed on courier agency for lack of due diligence since red sandalwood was mis-declared as copper wire in export consignment. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed.
CESTAT Delhi held that in case common input services are used for providing both taxable and exempted services, proportionate amount of CENVAT credit must be reversed as per rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, demand confirmed to that extent.
The CESTAT ruled that a service tax demand cannot be based solely on income declared during an income tax survey without corroborating evidence of taxable services.
CESTAT Delhi held that the DEPB scrips issued by the DGFT cannot be held ab initio null and void by the DRI or any other Customs Officers. Accordingly, confirmation of the demand under section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the impugned order is without any authority of law.
CESTAT Delhi held rejection of refund that too on the bais of raising the issue of classification is against the principles of judicial protocol. The order is accordingly, set aside and appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that customs authorities cannot question the discharge certificate issued by DGFT in respect of the export obligation in respect of EPCG License. Accordingly, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty set aside.
