CESTAT Delhi held that Customs broker is not required obtain any Recommendation or a certificate from any officer that the exporter is bonafide. Accordingly, order alleging violation of regulation 10(n) of CBLR unsustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is leviable as the appellant have resorted to unauthorised modification /alteration in the shipping bill after the same was passed by the proper officer of the Customs
CESTAT Delhi held that services by way of carrying out any process amounting to manufacture or production of goods, falls under the negative list and is exempted from the levy of service tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that freight charges are not includible in the transaction value when the sales take place at the factory gate. Here, appellants are mentioning the freight charges as separately in the invoices and there is nothing in the invoices or any other documents which shows that sales are on FOR destination basis
CESTAT Delhi held that Revenue has not brought any evidence on record to allege that the goods found and seized in the premises of the appellant are smuggled goods. It is onus of the Revenue to give evidence for allegation that the goods are smuggled in nature.
CESTAT Delhi held that as evidenced, appellants believed Sh. Rajan Arora in good faith and were also not aware about the mis-declaration/ under-valuation of the goods imported. Hence, penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act reduced from INR 12 Lakhs to INR 50,000.
Desmet Reagent Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Goods (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant urges that there is no disability provided under Rule 3 of CCR that Cenvat Credit shall not be available, if the duty is paid in the case of import through utilization of DEPB scrips. Rather Rule 9 of CCR specifically provides that one […]
CESTAT Delhi held that demand solely on the basis of the statement of the person who was not allowed to be cross-examined by the appellant is unjustified.
The Hon’ble CESTAT revoking the Customs Brokers licences of the appellants forfeiting their security deposits and further imposing penalty on the appellants cannot be sustained as Appellants have provided their best efforts to establish the genuinety of exporters and they have relied upon the documents which have been issued by Government to the exporters.
CESTAT Delhi held that amount deposited prior to adjudication but not held as payable under SVLDR Scheme is liable to be refunded back to the appellant.
