Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
