CESTAT Mumbai held that re-determination of assessable value of imported power bank without adequate evidence of undervaluation is not justifiable. Accordingly, order is set aside to that extent it had confirmed the adjudged demands on the basis of revised/enhanced valuation of goods.
CESTAT Mumbai held that accumulated credit of Education Cess, SHE Cess, and KKC cannot be transitioned or refunded because these levies were not subsumed under the GST regime.
The Tribunal found that the importer had sought first-check examination and the Chartered Engineers report confirmed the declared description of goods. As a result, allegations of mis-declaration and consequent penalties were held unsustainable.
The tribunal ruled that confiscation and penalties were not justified because the Chartered Engineer’s certificate confirmed that the imported goods matched the importer’s declaration.
The Tribunal held that a prior judicial decision cannot be classified as additional evidence under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules. Since the issue was already settled and affirmed by the Supreme Court, the remand order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
The Tribunal held that Customs cannot reject a higher transaction value to redetermine a lower value for imposing anti-dumping duty. Rule 12 does not authorize downward revision merely to levy ADD.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside a differential IGST demand, holding that CBIC’s beneficial circular clarifying 12% GST on poultry machinery parts applies retrospectively. The Tribunal ruled that payment at the lower rate stands regularised for the past period.
The Tribunal held that IGST demand based on alleged breach of pre-import condition was unsustainable where export obligations were fulfilled and EODCs were issued. Acceptance of EODCs and bond cancellation closed the exemption compliance.
CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax demand order set aside since show cause notice [SCN] and adjudication order not duly served upon the appellant. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The tribunal held that since the IEC alert was lifted after the original order, the refund claim required fresh consideration. The matter was remanded to allow document submission and lawful adjudication.
