CESTAT Delhi held that the gold in question is not proved to be the smuggled gold of foreign origin. Mere purity thereof being equivalent to the purity of foreign gold is wrongly held to be the criteria to hold the melted gold as the gold of foreign origin. Hence, investigation is observed to be faulty.
Trinity International Forwarders, the appellant assessee was a Customs Broker. The assessee had been accused of violated the Regulations of 11(d), 11(e) or 11(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.
The respondent/importer had filed three bills of entry dated 27.01.2021 for clearance of imported goods Zinc Scrap, Saves/Scope which were imported from M/s Olympic Metal, Miami, USA. As the Department noticed that the declared value of the goods was lower than the contemporaneous import of similar goods and that the sale involved an abnormal discount and abnormal rejection from ordinary competitive prices, a query was raised from the importer to provide material/evidence to justify the declared value in terms of Section 17(3) of the Customs Act, 1962
CESTAT Delhi held that commission earned on services provided to foreign entity for products sold in India is ‘export of service’ and accordingly exempt from service tax.
CESTAT rules in favor of Shivani Detergent Pvt. Ltd., upholding the CENVAT credit for erection & commissioning of a spray drying plant as ‘input service’.
CESTAT Delhi held that Universal Joints Parts to be used in transmission shaft, are more specifically covered under sub heading 8483 60 90 and not under heading 8708.
Review and analysis of the CESTAT Delhi’s ruling in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner regarding tax on contractual penalties.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty u/s. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act not leviable in absence of any knowledge of goods of prohibited nature being imported.
CESTAT Delhi upholds penalty imposed under section 114AA of the Customs Act on M/s Surendra Electricals for mis-declaration of the quantity of LED lights in the bill of entry.
In the case of Rajasthan Syntex Limited vs. Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi), the issue revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to interest for the intervening period when the rebate claim, which was retained by the Adjudicating Authority illegally, was ultimately sanctioned.
