CESTAT Mumbai ruled that payments received by players for playing cricket are not taxable under Business Support Service, upholding the Commissioner’s decision that only promotional income, if any, could attract tax.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claims under Section 27 cannot invoke extended limitation if the bill of entry was assessed under Section 17 and not provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside the denial of IGST benefit, applying GST Council and TRU clarification that all goods under heading 3822 are covered. Concessional rate of 12% now applies, with recalculation of interest and penalty.
CESTAT Mumbai held that determining value of furniture on the basis of weight is not justifiable since furniture is never ever sold by weight. Accordingly, revision in assessable value set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Customs Department was directed by CESTAT to pay interest on a pre-deposit, overturning a decision that denied it because the deposit was against a penalty. The ruling affirmed that Section mandates interest on the refunded amount after the appeal is decided.
CESTAT Mumbai held that re-deployment of auxiliary equipment post completion of project doesn’t amount to violation of Project Import Regulations, 1986. Accordingly, appeal allowed and impugned order is set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai sets aside order against Hawkins Cookers on alleged wrongful CENVAT credit of ₹68 lakh, remanding case to adjudicating authority for fresh review.
CESTAT Mumbai held that appellant is entitled for refund of credit admissible on account of payment of Countervailing Duty [CVD] and Special Additional Duty [SAD] paid after 01.07.2017 [paid after Central Goods and Services Tax].
CESTAT rules on S. Kantilal & Company’s appeal, setting a legal precedent that redemption fines cannot exceed the market value of mis-declared goods.
The CESTAT in Mumbai rules on Spacewood Furnishers’ appeal, finding that the appeal period starts from the date of a speaking order, not the bill of entry.
