CESTAT Weekly Round-Up

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from July 9 to July 15, 2022.

My dream Properties Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 385

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai held that charges on undervaluation and misdeclaration of goods are not sustainable in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order was not maintainable as the charge of misdeclaration and undervaluation of the yacht falls flat, confiscation and penalties imposed also did not survive Mr S K Mohanty, member (judicial) Mr P Anjani Kumar, member (technical)upheld the impugned order to the extent of demand of duty on the V-sat antenna and the appeal was partly allowed set aside penalties imposed.

Diamond Creations vs C.C.-Mundra - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 384

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the charge of forgery on textile reports is not sustainable in the absence of cogent evidence. The Tribunal Observed that the charge of forgery should be proved by clear and cogent evidence which seems to be missing as two of the persons had retracted their statement and the statement of Mahesh Bhansuhali is the one left for which both the appellants have asked for the cross-examination which was denied by the lower authorities. which in our view should have been given since other confessional statements were retracted.

JANKI DASS RICE MILLS vs C.C.-Mundra - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 386

While quashing the order for confiscation and penalty against the importer, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad bench has held that the exporter is not responsible for the instructions given by the importer regarding the change in the port after the issuance of a “Let Export Order” by the customs authority. The Tribunal bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has found that in the present matter all the documents in respect of disputed consignments were in the name of Iranian buyers.

Mydream Properties Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 385

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that mere non-mentioning of words or phrases does not constitute suppression of material facts and set-asides order confirming differential duty demand. The Tribunal observed that the capacity ‘2xMAN 1360mHP’ applicable for evolution type, was specifically indicated in the bill of entry. Mere non-mentioning of the words/Phrase ‘E’ or ‘Evolution’ would in no way constitute suppression of material facts more so, the details are available in the documents submitted along with the Bill of Entry and it had no effect on the aspect of valuation of imported goods for assessment of the correct duty liability.

Mohit Industries vs Commissioner of Customs - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 387

In a significant ruling, the Principal Bench of Delhi Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that penalty for forgery of the BSI certificate will sustain if it was committed by the authorised employee of the assessee and corroborated with evidence collected from search. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal observed that the documents on record did not support the defence taken by the appellant and upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

M/s J. K. Cement Works vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax - 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 388

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Cenvat credits are allowable for Iron and Steel items used for maintenance of machinery. It was observed that cenvat credit was allowable also as input, as the items have been used admittedly (indirectly) as inputs in the factory of production, for the manufacture of dutiable finished goods and the steel and cement used for laying of the foundation for the erection of capital goods should be eligible for the cenvat benefit under the present set of rules.In the light of the precedents, Judicial Member Mr Anil Choudhary while allowing the appeal set aside the impugned order and held that the appellants were entitled to cenvat credit on the items of iron and steel etc.

M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise- 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 392

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Mumbai bench has held that duty paid on transformer received from the customer allowed as CENVAT credit under rule 16. The Tribunal Mr Sanjiv Srivastava, member (technical) and Mr Ajay Sharma, member (judicial) while allowing the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that “the goods stand returned in the present case and the appellant would be entitled to the credit, in terms of the said rules.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.