Cestat judgments

CESTAT Chennai has held that late fee imposed on the appellant for delay in filing of Bill of Entry was not proper, since the delay had occurred only because the original importer had failed to clear the goods....

Observing that there was no doubt that the green cardamom was used in making biscuits and pickles as flavouring agent and food additives, respectively, CESTAT Ahmedabad has rejected the department’s plea that since specific name of the product was not mentioned or ITC (HS) did not match in the DFIA licence, benefit thereunder was not av...

M/s Jubilant Life Science Limited Vs Additional Director General (Adj) (CESTAT Delhi) Following the decision of the High Court of Orissa in the case of Tata Steel v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 7917 of 2009],wherein the Explanation to Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, [&helli...

claim of refund was denied on the ground that the duty payment challans were not been produced. CESTAT Ahmedabad however observed that the amount had been deposited, received by the department through banker’s cheque and had also been realized, and that no challan was  taken by the assessee. It was held that even in the absence of chal...

M/S. Lucas TVS Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Observing that as per definition of ‘input services’ the restriction to avail credit up to the place of removal was applicable only for outward transportation of goods, CESTAT Chennai has allowed Cenvat credit of tax paid on renting of crates used in [&he...

CESTAT Allahabad has held that exemption to GTA services for transportation of foodstuff will apply to biscuits as well. The Tribunal observed that the size and time of eating biscuits may change but nevertheless biscuit is a food item....

CESTAT Chennai has allowed refund of excess amount paid by mistake as pre-deposit by the assessee. It observed that when the legislature made it clear what is to be collected as pre-deposit, in the absence of any finding about non-satisfaction of conditions as to pre-deposit, the department cannot retain such excess amount remitted by mis...

Nayara Energy Ltd. Vs C.C. Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT Ahmedabad has had held that the catalyst ‘Petromax- MD’, consumed in the final product and not required for setting up of the plant or required for running, repair and maintenance of the plant, was not eligible for the benefit of exemption which provided that the good...

M/s. Voith Turbo Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT Explains when Substantial mark-up in supply of imported goods to customers when not indicates undervaluation of imports Considering the nature of business of the appellant/importer and that the overheads involved in the business activity were bound to influence t...

M/s. O.M.S. Sivajothi Mills Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai has held that redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is an option in lieu of confiscation and hence, both (confiscation and redemption fine) cannot run simultaneously. It observed that when the order on confiscation remained unchalle...