CESTAT Weekly Flashback for the period 13 October 2024 to 19 October 2024.
Table of Contents
CESTAT – CESTAT Weekly Flashback
Non-Mention Of Tobacco Gradation In Invoices Can’t Be Defensible Ground For Confirmation Of Excise Duty Demands: CESTAT – CESTAT Weekly Flashback
Case Title: Arvind N. Patel Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II
Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 86076 of 2015
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the allegation regarding non-mention of Tobacco Gradation In Invoices cannot be the defensible ground for confirmation of the adjudged excise duty demands.
The bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) has observed that the charges of clandestine clearance of branded tobacco, as levelled against the appellant/assessee cannot be sustained inasmuch as Revenue has not brought out any substantial documentary evidence to prove such charges. Therefore, the adjudged demands confirmed on the assessee fails and consequently, the penalties imposed on the other appellants in the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Customs Broker Can’t Be Expected To Act As Investigating Agency, Can’t Go Beyond KYC Verification: CESTAT
Case Title:M/s. Mahavir Logistics Versus Commissioner of Customs
Case No.:Customs Appeal No.50446 of 2024
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) while quashing the penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the customs broker, held that the Customs Broker cannot be expected to act as an investigating agency and go beyond his obligations of KYC Verification of his client.
The bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya, (Technical Member) has observed that it is highly improper to impose a burden on the Customs Broker to verify who is the actual beneficiary in a transaction.
Central Excise Act | Statement Made During Investigation Before Central Excise Officer Cannot Be Relied Upon Unless Examined As Witness: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Sharp Mint Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Excise
Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 2579 Of 2010
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that statement made during investigation before a central excise officer cannot be relied upon unless examined as witness.
Declared Value In Bills Of Entry Can’t Be Rejected Based On Proforma Invoice: CESTAT Quashes Section 114AA Penalty
Case Title: M/s.Sunny Sales Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 76863 of 2019
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act and held that declared value in bills of entry cannot be rejected based on proforma invoice.
Discount Can’t Be Treated As Additional Consideration And Added To Arrive Assessable Value: CESTAT
Case Title: Mahanagar Gas Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II
Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 85167 of 2016
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the discount cannot be treated as additional consideration and added to arrive at an assessable value.
Too Onerous To Expect CHA To Enquire And Verify Genuineness Of IE Code For Each Import/Export Transaction: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Akansha Logistics Versus Commissioner of Customs Airport & General, New Delhi
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 55724 of 2023 [DB]
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that it is too onerous to expect the CHA to enquire into and verify the genuineness of IE Code (Import Export Code) given to it by a client for each import/export transaction.
The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that irrespective the exporters are found non-existent but since the IE code is issued after the background check of the importer/exporter had been undertaken by the customs authorities there can be no reason to doubt the identity of the importer or exporter.
CESTAT Allows Micromax Informatics To Raise Alternative Classification Of LED/LCD TV Panels And Accessories
Case Title: M/s Micromax Informatics Limited Versus Commissioner of Custom
Case No.: Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 51935 Of 2024 In Customs Appeal No. 50059 Of 2020
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the Micromax Informatics To Raise Alternative Classification Of LED/LCD TV Panels And Accessories.
The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) has relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Rama Machinery Corporation in which the appellant claimed one classification before the adjudicating authority but had claimed an alternative classification before the Tribunal. This was not permitted by the Tribunal. This view of the Tribunal was not accepted by the Supreme Court and it was held the Tribunal should have permitted the appellant to raise this alternative classification.
