Explore the CESTAT Mumbai decision on the classification of imported aerosol valve components under Customs Tariff Items (CTI) 8481 8090 vs. 9616 1020. Understand the implications and legal arguments in this detailed analysis.
Read the full text of the CESTAT Mumbai order in MIRC Electronics Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs. Detailed analysis of customs duty exemption for imported liquid crystal devices.
Customs Brokers are not obligated to authenticate transactions beyond provided documents unless discrepancies are evident. The Tribunal partially upheld the impugned order, reducing penalties and affirming partial forfeiture of security deposits.
CESTAT held that for extended limitation period to apply, department must establish elements such as suppression or fraud. Since no such allegations were made in notices, extended period could not be invoked.
Understand the CESTAT Mumbai order on absence of speaking order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act. Detailed analysis, implications, and conclusion.
Explore CESTAT Mumbai’s order on IBM India vs Commissioner of Customs, disputing classification of Optical Transceivers under Customs Tariff Item 8517 6290 for duty exemptions.
CESTAT Mumbai rules trade discount to bulk buyer of CNG not liable for excise duty. Detailed analysis of Mahanagar Gas Ltd. vs Commissioner case.
Compelling imperative consequent upon contradictory reports cannot be ignored. For central excise authorities to assume antipodal positions is neither becoming nor legally proper
CESTAT Mumbai remands Michigan Engineers Pvt Ltd’s case for re-adjudication, questioning service classification and subcontractor’s role in taxable services.
CESTAT Mumbai: Saf Yesat Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – penalties deemed jurisdictionally void for issuing second SCN without adjudicating first.
