The Tribunal upheld rejection of appeals as time-barred, holding that time spent on an unrelated refund application could not be excluded. The ruling clarifies that section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only when the same matter is pursued with due diligence.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded during investigation were inadmissible as mandatory procedures under Section 138B were not followed. Without valid evidence, confiscation and penalties were set aside.
The Tribunal held that declaring viscose fabric while importing polyester amounted to mis-declaration, justifying rejection of transaction value, confiscation, and penalty equal to duty evaded.
The Tribunal held that transaction value could not be rejected without evidence or proper application of valuation rules. Arbitrary enhancement and penalties were quashed for lack of comparables and proof of undervaluation.
The Tribunal upheld reclassification and duty recovery but ruled that section 111(o) applies only where exemption conditions are breached. Mere ineligibility to exemption due to wrong classification cannot justify confiscation or penalty.
The Tribunal set aside reclassification of imported penetrating oil as adulterated diesel. It held that failure to meet diesel BIS standards and lack of proof of adulteration defeated the Revenue’s case.
The Tribunal upheld duty and interest on use of a fraudulently enhanced duty credit scrip but ruled that penalty under section 114AA cannot be imposed without proof of knowledge or intent. The key takeaway is that mens rea is mandatory for section 114AA penalties.
The Tribunal held that deposits from an e-auction could not be forfeited where confiscated cigarettes failed to meet mandatory labelling laws. Since the goods were required to be destroyed, refund with interest was directed.
CESTAT held that handheld barcode scanners with limited mobile features are not classifiable as smartphones. The ruling restores classification as scanners under CTH 8471 and grants exemption from Basic Customs Duty.
CESTAT Delhi held that imported parts being all parts of Juniper router are cannot be classified as Network Interface Card hence are classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90 as contended by appellant and not under CTI 8517 62 90 as contended by department.
