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.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that mandarin juice concentrate falls under “juice of any other single citrus fruit” and not orange juice because the Customs Tariff separately classifies oranges and mandarins. The Tribunal upheld duty demand for the normal period but quashed penalties and extended limitation.
The CESTAT Mumbai held that placement fees collected from students by educational institutions are not taxable under manpower recruitment service. The Tribunal ruled that no consideration flowed from employers, which is essential under the charging provision.
CESTAT Mumbai held that recovery proceedings and penalty were unsustainable where inadmissible CENVAT credit was reversed before issuance of notice and remained unutilised due to sufficient credit balance.
Tribunal held that Section 159A of the Customs Act could not revive Rules 16 and 16A of repealed 1995 Drawback Rules where 2017 Rules showed a different legislative intention. Recovery proceedings initiated in 2022 were therefore held unsustainable.
