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 appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), imported goods and stored them in a licensed warehouse u/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. These goods were destroyed in a fire accident at the factory premises. Although the goods were insured for their value, the duty element was not covered. The insurance company settled the claim after determining the fire was caused by unavoidable circumstances. The department also recorded the destroyed goods. Despite the duty element not being insured, there was no negligence on the appellant's part. As per Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Notification No. 22/2023-CE dated 31.03.2003, when goods are lost, the question of demanding duty does not arise. The Appellate Tribunal, in a similar case, held that if the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that the imported goods have been lost, duty cannot be demanded. Since the fire occurred due to unforeseen reasons, the demand for duty is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), imported goods and stored them in a licensed warehouse u/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. These goods were destroyed in a fire accident at the factory premises. Although the goods were insured for their value, the duty element was not covered. The insurance company settled the claim after determining the fire was caused by unavoidable circumstances. The department also recorded the destroyed goods. Despite the duty element not being insured, there was no negligence on the appellant's part. As per Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Notification No. 22/2023-CE dated 31.03.2003, when goods are lost, the question of demanding duty does not arise. The Appellate Tribunal, in a similar case, held that if the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that the imported goods have been lost, duty cannot be demanded. Since the fire occurred due to unforeseen reasons, the demand for duty is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
