Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
