Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The case involves mis-declaration of imported goods to evade customs duties. The appellant declared goods as 100% Cotton fabrics to misuse duty exemption under DFRC licenses, while actually importing 65% poly and 35% Cotton fabrics. The fabrication of documents was admitted, leading to evasion of customs duties. The invocation of extended period was deemed justified. However, the Show Cause Notice issued was held time-barred as it exceeded the 5-year limit u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. CESTAT held in a previous case that such notices beyond 5 years are invalid. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside.
The case involves mis-declaration of imported goods to evade customs duties. The appellant declared goods as 100% Cotton fabrics to misuse duty exemption under DFRC licenses, while actually importing 65% poly and 35% Cotton fabrics. The fabrication of documents was admitted, leading to evasion of customs duties. The invocation of extended period was deemed justified. However, the Show Cause Notice issued was held time-barred as it exceeded the 5-year limit u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. CESTAT held in a previous case that such notices beyond 5 years are invalid. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
