CESTAT Delhi held that appellant produced all the evidence and documents contending that mobile phones were purchased from open market in Delhi. However, customs department failed to satisfy the onus that the said mobile phones were smuggled in nature. Accordingly, goods released.
CESTAT held that interest is payable for default in depositing the tax by the due date voluntarily or after determination of the amount of duty under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Delhi held that the appellant had done only test production and hence duty demand on the same is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that after adjudication if the goods are held liable for confiscation, they may be released on payment of redemption fine.
CESTAT Delhi held that as identity and genuine export of CPC (Calcined Petroleum Coke) is duly established, re-import of the rejected goods are to be treated as freely importable under Foreign Trade Policy.
CESTAT Delhi held that as the zonal offices are integral part of the appellant and hence location of the same hardly makes any difference Accordingly Cenvat Credit allowed in respect of input services availed by zonal offices allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that a clinical establishment providing health care services are exempted from service tax. Accordingly, part of consideration received from such health care services from the patient is also not taxable under Business Support Service.
It is evident that there was no requirement of NOC from the Drug Controller in respect of export consignment vide Shipping Bill No. 7099329 dt. 16.04.20 16 filed by the appellant for export of drugs to Liberia.
Cipra Enterprises Vs Commissioner Of Customs- (Export) (CESTAT Delhi) Learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that it is not in dispute that the goods are not of Indian origin and hence, the appellant was not entitled to claim the benefit of MEIS. Thus, the goods were found to be mis-declared as the appellant had declared the goods […]
CESTAT Delhi held that order of revoking the license of the Customs Broker is unreasonable and unjustified as there was no violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
