Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4789
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
