Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
CESTAT Bangalore held that show-cause notices invoking extended period u/s 28(1)/(4) of Customs Act were not valid as appellant had informed authorities about capital goods destruction and obtained necessary permissions for de-bonding. Commissioner (A) dropped penalty u/s 114A due to continuous correspondence with no suppression of facts. Order-in-Appeal upheld demand u/s 72(1) based on B17 bond, not sustainable beyond show-cause notice. Decision referenced CCE vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd. to set aside impugned orders and allow appeals.
CESTAT Bangalore held that show-cause notices invoking extended period u/s 28(1)/(4) of Customs Act were not valid as appellant had informed authorities about capital goods destruction and obtained necessary permissions for de-bonding. Commissioner (A) dropped penalty u/s 114A due to continuous correspondence with no suppression of facts. Order-in-Appeal upheld demand u/s 72(1) based on B17 bond, not sustainable beyond show-cause notice. Decision referenced CCE vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd. to set aside impugned orders and allow appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
