CESTAT Delhi rules against Leel Electricals Ltd., denying CENVAT Credit on ineligible invoices. The tribunal upholds tax demand and penalty.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty has to be paid when goods imported into an SEZ are not used for the authorised operations but are sold in Domestic Tariff Area. Accordingly, in such case, duty demand has to be raised as per the Customs Act.
The appellant is engaged in manufacturing of excisable goods falling under chapter 84 and are availing Cenvat credit of duty and tax paid on inputs and input services and are also registered u/s. 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 for discharging their service tax liability.
CESTAT Delhi rules customs duty exemption cannot be denied if export obligations are met and EODCs issued, overturning a ₹21 crore demand.
CESTAT Delhi overturns ₹10 lakh penalty under Rule 26(1), citing the absence of confiscation, a key requirement for imposing penalties under the Excise Rules.
Disha Realcon and SM Niryat had exported iron ore fines whose Fe content was below 58% under some Shipping Bills and iron ore fines whose Fe content was above 58% under some other Shipping Bills.
Read about Mittal Appliances Ltd.’s customs appeal where transaction values for copper scrap were rejected. Detailed analysis of the CESTAT Delhi ruling on valuation rules and implications.
Tribunal imposed a mandatory penalty of ₹15,59,363 under Section 114A of the Customs Act for misclassification and duty evasion, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory requirements in cases of deliberate misdeclarations.
CESTAT Delhi held that communication modules being parts of communication hubs is classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90. Accordingly, differential duty and also interest and imposition of penalty u/s. 114A set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, being the custodian of imported goods, appellant was burdened with the responsibility of safe custody of the imported goods.
