CESTAT Mumbai held that re-classification of goods and demand of differential duty based on re-testing report without providing the said re-test report to the importer/ assessee is not tenable in law. Accordingly, demand u/s. 28 doesn’t stand the scrutiny of law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that ‘Gun Shape Metal Cigarette Lighters’ are not liable for confiscation u/s. 111(d)/ 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 since ‘cigarette lighters’ of gun shape remain as lighters by its functioning and not as replica of arms as defined u/s. 69A of the Weapons Act, 1990.
CESTAT Mumbai held that mis-classification/ mis-declaration of goods merely on the basis of statement of importer not justifiable as department failed to discharged burden of proof with proper evidence. Accordingly, appeal allowed in favour of appellant.
CESTAT Mumbai held that double payment of amount of customs duty is only a deposit with government and hence question of applying limitation under section 27 of the Customs Act would not arise. Accordingly, order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
The CESTAT Mumbai ruled that demurrage charged by a shipping company is not a separate taxable service but is linked to the exempt service of goods transportation.
CESTAT Mumbai has set aside a penalty on Ceat Ltd for a reversed CENVAT credit, ruling that voluntarily correcting an error negates an intent to evade tax.
CESTAT Mumbai dismisses a revenue appeal, confirming that VAT/sales tax subsidies under the Goa scheme are not to be included in the assessable value for central excise duty.
The CESTAT Mumbai has remanded a service tax dispute back to the original authority for a new adjudication. The case centers on whether tax liability is determined by the date a service is completed or the date payment is received.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled Lehman Brothers India not liable for service tax on winding-up services, setting aside refund rejection and allowing appeals.
The CESTAT Mumbai has set aside a customs duty demand against JSW Steel, ruling that a corrigendum issued over four years after the original notice was a time-barred fresh notice. The tribunal found the initial SCN was defective for lacking legal authority.
