CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order in toto on merits and as time-barred. The Tribunal held the demand for Countervailing Duty (CVD) was without jurisdiction where valuation and duty fell to be determined under Section 4A of the CEA and the goods were taxable under the Third Schedule, making labelling/relabelling a deemed manufacture attracting excise duty rather than an isolated CVD demand; CVD paid at import would be available as Cenvat credit against any subsequent excise liability. Revenue's differential CVD quantification was held erroneous and unsupported by requisite comparators or corroborative evidence; statements relied on lacked requisite Section 138B procedural safeguards. Confiscation and redemption fine were set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order in toto on merits and as time-barred. The Tribunal held the demand for Countervailing Duty (CVD) was without jurisdiction where valuation and duty fell to be determined under Section 4A of the CEA and the goods were taxable under the Third Schedule, making labelling/relabelling a deemed manufacture attracting excise duty rather than an isolated CVD demand; CVD paid at import would be available as Cenvat credit against any subsequent excise liability. Revenue's differential CVD quantification was held erroneous and unsupported by requisite comparators or corroborative evidence; statements relied on lacked requisite Section 138B procedural safeguards. Confiscation and redemption fine were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
