TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the denial of exemption from customs duty on the imported household articles under the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978 was justified on the ground that the goods looked new and were not shown to have been in possession and use abroad for the requisite period.
Analysis: The Rules required a declaration that the goods had been in the possession and use of the importer or the family abroad for a minimum period of one year, and once such declaration was made the burden shifted to the Department to show otherwise from the examination of the goods and attendant circumstances. The importer's explanation that the goods had been purchased earlier, installed at her residence abroad, and used sparingly because of family circumstances was not controverted. The impugned order merely stated that the articles looked new, without dealing with the explanation or recording a positive finding that the goods had not been in possession and use for the required period.
Conclusion: The denial of the benefit of the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978 was unsustainable, and the exemption could not be refused on the basis that the goods looked new.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an importer makes the required declaration under the transfer-of-residence regime, exemption cannot be denied merely because the goods appear new unless the authority positively finds, on the basis of examination and circumstances, that they were not in possession and use abroad for the prescribed period.
TaxTMI 
