The Tribunal ruled that refund limitation under Section 27 does not apply to bank guarantees encashed during pending appeals and ordered customs to refund the encashed amount.
The issue was whether customs could deny AIFTA duty exemption for ten consignments based only on irregularities found in a separate, single import. The CESTAT set aside the duty demand, holding that the exemption cannot be denied without a finding on the authenticity or validity of the individual Certificate of Origin (COO).
CESTAT Mumbai set aside a ₹1 lakh penalty on a Custom House Agent (CHA), ruling that mere classification disputes are not grounds for confiscation or penalty.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside an order that rejected an exporter’s supplementary claim for Swatch Bharat Cess (SBC) refund. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules has no bar on filing multiple refund claims for the same period.
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.
