Read about the CESTAT decision in the case of Globus Infocomm Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), where the plea for change of classification was accepted. The order directs the re-examination of classification, duty demands, mis-declaration allegations, and penalties.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Value of Imported goods) 2007 the value shall be the value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods. If such a value is not found, then as per Rule 5 the value shall then be the value of contemporaneous imports of similar goods. Only if neither is available, Rules 7 can be resorted to.
CESTAT Delhi set aside the office memorandum for reconsideration of recommendation made by designated authority for imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty.
Nitin Industries (Trade Name) Vs Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT find that admittedly, Save and Except taking forward of the credit balance as on 30.06.2017, the appellant have not commenced production or manufacturing activities nor cleared any taxable goods on or after 1.7.2017. Further, debit by the appellant in the electronic […]
CESTAT Delhi held that once the confiscation of seized currency is set aside, the appellant is entitled for refund of said seized currency along with interest. Department cannot deny payment of interest merely for the reason that there is no express statutory provision for the same
HC upheld order passed by Revenue Department confiscating the waste oil and imposing the penalty on import of the same. Held that, re-export of imported waste oil is not allowable as it is prohibited under the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Trans-boundary Movement) Rules, 2008
CESTAT Delhi held that interest @6% per annum is payable u/s 35FF of the Excise Act in case the amount of pre-deposit is not refunded within three months of the date of communication of the order of the Tribunal.
CESTAT Delhi held that appellant is not involved in the arrangement/ facilitation of the supply of service and hence the appellant is not intermediary. The service provided by the appellant qualify for export and accordingly refund admissible under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
CESTAT Delhi held that as the appellant bonafidely, in view of their claim of Area based exemption, didn’t collected central excise duty, they are entitled to benefit of recalculation of demand on cum-duty basis as per explanation to section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that the intermediary does not include the person who supplies such goods or services or both on his own account. Thus, the person supplying the main supply on principal to principal basis cannot come within the ambit of “intermediary”.
