CESTAT held that purchase invoices, GST returns, stock registers, and job work challans sufficiently established lawful ownership of the seized gold. The Tribunal ruled that the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act had been discharged, making confiscation and penalties unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA could not be imposed where the importer submitted all relevant documents, including an emission certificate from an authorized agency. The Tribunal ruled that failure to identify any deficiency during assessment was attributable to Customs, not the importer.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the actual user condition imposed through a DGFT Public Notice could not be enforced against imports under a transferable post-export DFIA. The Tribunal allowed the exemption and directed issuance of a certificate for revalidation of expired DFIAs.
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT credit on tippers could not be denied merely because they were received before their inclusion as capital goods. Since the vehicles were registered and put to use after 22.06.2010, the credit was held admissible.
CESTAT observed that the appellant executed complete government construction projects on a turnkey basis and was responsible for all aspects of implementation. Since the contracts were composite works contracts, the service tax demand failed.
The Tribunal held that late fees could not be imposed where supplementary Bills of Entry were filed due to excess cargo discovered after clearance and the delay was not attributable to the importer. It ruled that Section 46(3) permits waiver in deserving cases.
The Tribunal held that test reports from two live consignments could not be mechanically applied to past imports without separate evidence. Each Bill of Entry was treated as an independent assessment.
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs Abhishek Mundhra (CESTAT Kolkata) The Revenue challenged an Order-in-Appeal that had set aside the confiscation of 15 kg of gold bangles/strips and 1,754.29 grams of silver granules, as well as penalties imposed on various noticees. The case originated from a DRI operation based on intelligence alleging that gold smuggled from […]
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT credit on items such as MS Angles, Beams, Channels, and Plates is admissible where they are essential for manufacturing final products. The denial order was set aside.
The dispute concerned denial of 67% abatement on construction and works contract services involving supply of materials. CESTAT held that substantive tax benefits cannot be refused solely due to failure to claim them in ST-3 returns. The Service Tax demand and related penalty were consequently set aside.
