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.
Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that the Commissioner could not have ordered for cost recovery charges under the provisions of regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of Customs Area Regulations 2009. Accordingly, penalty imposed under regulation 12(8) also not sustainable. Facts- The appellant is a State Government […]
CESTAT ruled that CBEC does not have the power to modify the scope of an exemption notification that the Central Government has issued.
Indian Additives Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The definition of “capital goods” after 01.04.2016 does not exclude ‘any equipment or appliance used in an office’. For this reason, I hold that the credit availed by the appellant on the said computer server after 01.04.2016 would be eligible. It has also […]
M J Gold Pvt Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly, the Customs Authority while verifying the origin of goods had issued a questionnaire and denied the benefit on the ground that the complete questionnaire was not answered by the appellant creating a doubt about the Country of origin Certificate. The perusal […]
