CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs cannot re-assess import value solely on NIDB data. Transaction value must first be rejected on cogent evidence before any enhancement.
CESTAT Kolkata held that once proceedings are initiated under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, separate penalty proceedings under the Customs Act are not permissible without independent evidence of offence.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the device i.e. Face Recognition System is clearly Automatic Data Processing machinery falling under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 8471 only and not under CTH 8543. Accordingly, appeals are allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that in absence of any cogent and corroborative evidence, gold in question cannot be construed to be of foreign origin or smuggled in nature. Accordingly, god seized is not liable for confiscation under section 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act. 1962. Accordingly, order is set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the allegation of clandestine removal of goods cannot be sustained on the basis of documents recovered from such third-party premises. Accordingly, issue answered in favour of the appellant.
The Tribunal held that betel nuts could not be confiscated because the department failed to prove smuggling as required under Section 123. With no valid evidence beyond the ARDF report, both confiscation and penalties were set aside.
The Tribunal held that confiscation of all seized betel nuts was unjustified, as only a documented portion belonged to the appellants. Revenue was directed to release 150 kgs fit for consumption.
The Tribunal held that the late filing fines imposed on the importer were unjustified due to ICEGATE system malfunction and pandemic-related delays. Relief was granted as the delay was not wilful.
Authorities determined that the imported device aligned with excluded serial items relating to optical transport systems, leading to denial of duty concession. The ruling underscores the importance of circular-based product identification.
The Tribunal held that one-time lease premium and salami for commercial units cannot be taxed as renting services because the transaction involved transfer of substantial property rights and construction service, not periodic rent. Car-parking fees were also found non-taxable under renting. The ruling provides key clarity for real estate developers on classification and abatement eligibility.
