Cestat judgments - Page 3

Penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act cannot be imposed on CHA

Kailash Bahiru Jadhav Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai)

Kailash Bahiru Jadhav Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai) Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004 which is a comprehensive self-contained scheme for licensing, operations, monitoring and regulation, is a standalone provision. Indeed it is a special provision in the Customs Act, 1962 by which, a whole range of activ...

Read More

Computer with integrated CPU, VDU and virtual keyboard is portable PC

Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) -(CESTAT Mumbai)

Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import)- (CESTAT Mumbai) Computer having integrated CPU, VDU, but without physical keyboard (having virtual keyboard), and weighing less than 10 kg is classifiable as portable PC under TI 84713010 and not under TI 84715000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal found no literatu...

Read More

Valuation without indicating how market survey was conducted, is wrong

Tushar Trading Company Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)

Tushar Trading Company Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Assessing officer has enhanced the declared value on the ground that those are not inconsonance with the current market price of similar goods being sold in the Indian market. However, the adjudication order does not indicate as to how and where the market survey h...

Read More

Mere Providing of Floodlighting connected to a grid not amounts to transmission & distribution of electricity

Vishwanath Projects Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad)

Vishwanath Projects Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Evidently, from a bare perusal of the contract, it is evident that the purpose of the contract is for providing floodlighting along the Indo Bangladesh Border in the State of Tripura and NOT for transmission and distribution of electricity. Merely because electr...

Read More

Cleaning service through manpower engaged under own control is not Manpower services

Mankeshwar Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)

t is apparently clear that appellant was providing cleaning service through manpower engaged under its control and supervision and not supplied manpower to the service receiver to undertake cleaning service under the control and supervision of the service receiver and and the same cannot be treated as Manpower, recruitment or Supply Servi...

Read More

Adopting cost inflation index of Income Tax for Excise valuation not valid

Shri Krsna Urja Project Pvt Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi)

Shri Krsna Urja Project Pvt Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that there was no legal basis for adopting cost inflation index of Income Tax dept for determination of assessable value under Section 4 of CE Act read with the CE Valuation Rules, 2000, for valuation of captively consumed goods. The Tribunal also […]...

Read More

EPCG scheme: No interest payable on composition fee as same is not duty under Customs Section 28

Lulu International Convention Centre Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs Cochin-cus (CESTAT Bangalore)

Lulu International Convention Centre Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs Cochincus (CESTAT Bangalore) Appellant has discharged the export obligation and has also obtained redemption certificate from DGFT. Further I find that as per the EPCG Scheme, there is a provision that extension in export obligation period beyond two years period may ...

Read More

Denial of cross examination of Directors not violative of principles of natural justice in all cases

Silicone Concepts International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)

Delhi High Court has held that statement of directors of company who were co-noticees cannot be in every case need to be cross examined under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 138 of Customs Act, 1962. It was held that statement of directors cannot be called as statement simplicitor but a statement as that of the compa...

Read More

Declared value cannot be revised just because it is lower than in NIDB database

Sai Exports Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)

CESTAT Chennai has held that the difference in the declared value and the value in the NIDB database does not constitute in itself a 'reasonable doubt' needed to reject the transaction value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), 2007. It was held that simply because the value declared by the appell...

Read More

Classification of goods – No estoppel to raise dispute in subsequent import

General Mills India Ltd. Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Mumbai)

Mumbai Bench of CESTAT has held that there is no estoppel in raising classification dispute in subsequent import of a product and that in the absence of appropriate classification there was nothing binding to treat previous classification as the sole option....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,438)
Company Law (5,281)
Custom Duty (7,558)
DGFT (4,090)
Excise Duty (4,318)
Fema / RBI (3,947)
Finance (4,105)
Income Tax (31,607)
SEBI (3,295)
Service Tax (3,507)

Search Posts by Date

January 2020
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031