Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not impose any time limitation for issuing a show cause notice (SCN) for confiscation or penalty imposition. The appellant's plea of the notice being time-barred u/ss 111(m) or 124 cannot be accepted due to the absence of a time limit envisaged in these provisions. The reliance on the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS MMK JEWELLERS & ANOTHER is inapplicable as it pertained to a notice u/s 28 and penalty u/s 114(A). Based on the Mumbai Police report, it is evident that the imported car was mis-declared by tampering the chassis number and year of manufacture, warranting value redetermination at Rs.10,86,735/- u/r 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not impose any time limitation for issuing a show cause notice (SCN) for confiscation or penalty imposition. The appellant's plea of the notice being time-barred u/ss 111(m) or 124 cannot be accepted due to the absence of a time limit envisaged in these provisions. The reliance on the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS MMK JEWELLERS & ANOTHER is inapplicable as it pertained to a notice u/s 28 and penalty u/s 114(A). Based on the Mumbai Police report, it is evident that the imported car was mis-declared by tampering the chassis number and year of manufacture, warranting value redetermination at Rs.10,86,735/- u/r 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
