Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
A bona fide transferee of a duty-free licence re-registered in the customs system was held not liable for customs duty merely because the licence was later alleged to have been fraudulently re-registered. The Tribunal distinguished an existing licence that had been re-registered from a fake or forged licence, and applied the principle that a purchaser for value cannot be denied benefit where the licence was validly in circulation and acted upon during its validity. It also held that the extended period was unavailable because the notice relied only on an alleged failure to verify the licence, without any misrepresentation, collusion, or suppression by the purchaser. The demand and impugned order were set aside.
A bona fide transferee of a duty-free licence re-registered in the customs system was held not liable for customs duty merely because the licence was later alleged to have been fraudulently re-registered. The Tribunal distinguished an existing licence that had been re-registered from a fake or forged licence, and applied the principle that a purchaser for value cannot be denied benefit where the licence was validly in circulation and acted upon during its validity. It also held that the extended period was unavailable because the notice relied only on an alleged failure to verify the licence, without any misrepresentation, collusion, or suppression by the purchaser. The demand and impugned order were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
