The issue was whether duty drawback demand can be raised on persons other than the exporter. CESTAT held that only the “person chargeable,” i.e., the exporter, can be targeted under Section 11A.
The Tribunal examined whether penalties can continue after the main dispute is settled. It held that co-noticees have no independent liability once the primary demand is resolved. The ruling clarifies the consequential nature of such penalties.
The Tribunal examined whether interest recovery under Section 75 is subject to limitation. It held that limitation applicable to principal tax demand also applies to interest. The key takeaway is that interest cannot be recovered beyond prescribed time limits.
The Tribunal examined statutory requirements of service, including consideration and parties involved. It held that absence of these elements makes the levy unsustainable. The decision clarifies the scope of taxable service.
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.
