Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The case pertains to confiscation and redemption of goods, levy of penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, and determination of capacity of suction pumps and excess quantity of non-textured fabric. The key points are: the burden of proof lies on the department to establish that the declared capacity of pumps is incorrect; the appellant's declared value should be accepted as the department failed to provide evidence against it. The appellant does not dispute the excess quantity of non-textured fabric and has paid duty on it. Section 28 can only be invoked after goods are cleared for home consumption. The reassessment done by the Additional Commissioner is u/s 17, not Section 28, rendering Sections 28AA and 114A inapplicable. Confiscation of goods is discretionary u/s 111, and in this case, no sufficient ground exists for confiscation. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the demand for duty on excess quantity but set aside the rest of the order, allowing the appeal in part.
The case pertains to confiscation and redemption of goods, levy of penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, and determination of capacity of suction pumps and excess quantity of non-textured fabric. The key points are: the burden of proof lies on the department to establish that the declared capacity of pumps is incorrect; the appellant's declared value should be accepted as the department failed to provide evidence against it. The appellant does not dispute the excess quantity of non-textured fabric and has paid duty on it. Section 28 can only be invoked after goods are cleared for home consumption. The reassessment done by the Additional Commissioner is u/s 17, not Section 28, rendering Sections 28AA and 114A inapplicable. Confiscation of goods is discretionary u/s 111, and in this case, no sufficient ground exists for confiscation. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the demand for duty on excess quantity but set aside the rest of the order, allowing the appeal in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
