Tribunal ruled that interest liability extends to the full duty adjudged under Section 28, regardless of whether payment is made through cash or EPCG licence adjustment. The decision clarifies the scope of compensatory interest provisions.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules does not mandate that remanufactured goods be supplied back to the original customer. The Tribunal allowed the credit and ordered refund of the demand.
The Mumbai CESTAT remanded a service tax dispute after finding that the appellant failed to include grounds of appeal in the prescribed ST-4 form. The Tribunal held that proper pleadings are essential for meaningful appellate adjudication.
The Mumbai CESTAT set aside a service tax demand after finding that the Show Cause Notice failed to identify the relevant sub-clause under Business Auxiliary Services. The Tribunal held that such vagueness violated principles of natural justice and invalidated the entire proceeding.
CESTAT Mumbai held that computer printouts and email records could not be relied upon for customs duty demands because statutory requirements under Section 138C of the Customs Act were not followed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that unlocking and activating mobile phones before export only amounted to product configuration and not “use” under the Drawback Rules. The Tribunal therefore quashed confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on the exporter.
Tribunal held that Customs authorities could not reclassify imported industrial composite solvent as kerosene when all mandatory BIS specifications were not tested. It observed that missing parameters rendered the laboratory reports inconclusive and legally unreliable.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess paid through MEIS duty credit scrips for past imports constituted valid discharge of customs duty liability. The Tribunal held that any fresh cash recovery by the Revenue would amount to impermissible double recovery.
CESTAT Mumbai upheld demand, interest, and penalty for failure to reverse SAD Cenvat credit on imported inputs transferred between units. The Tribunal held that extended limitation was valid due to suppression in ER-1 returns.
CESTAT Mumbai held that a mere demand notice cannot replace the statutory show cause notice required under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal ruled that recovery proceedings initiated without proper notice were legally unsustainable.
