CESTAT Kolkata quashes penalty in a service tax case related to testing, inspection, and certification services due to a limitation issue.
CESTAT Kolkata dismisses an appeal as it was filed beyond the condonable period specified by Section 128 of the Customs Act. Learn more about the case.
Learn about the dismissal of CESTAT appeals following the NCLT order in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd.
Held that the importer is allowed to choose the more beneficial provision and cannot be forced to opt for / follow the non-beneficial provision. Accordingly, the goods in question Peas [Pisum Sativum] was present both in Sl No.20 and Sl No.20A of the basic Notification No.50/2017 Cus dated 30.6.2017 and hence assessee eligible to avail benefit of NIL rate of BCD.
CESTAT Kolkata upheld the imposition of excise duty on coal clearances from sister units. However, the Show Cause Notice was challenged on the grounds of limitation.
CESTAT Kolkata held that 100% EOU unit clearing Spent Sulphuric Acid to fertilizer companies is entitled to take benefit of notification no. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006.
CESTAT Kolkata held that valuation of fuel oil and diesel oil used during coastal run of the vessel is to be done as per the ‘Residual Method’ prescribed under rule 9(1) of the Valuation Rules.
CESTAT Kolkata held that revocation of customs broker licence for violation of post import condition of the exemption notification by the importer unsustainable as customs broker has a limited role of filing bill of entry and at no stretch of imagination can be held liable for violation of post import condition.
CESTAT Kolkata held that when the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) is Nil Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS), being computed at the rate of 10% of BCD, will also be Nil
Read about the case of Commissioner of CGST & Excise vs. National Aluminium Company Limited where no duty liability was imposed on transition from EOU to EPCG Scheme due to fulfilled export obligations.
