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...
Legal issues regarding the recovery of IGST/customs duty, interest, redemption fine, and penalty in connection with imports made under the Advance Authorization scheme. It states that while provisions exist for recovering IGST u/s 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, there are no specific provisions for recovering interest, fine, and penalty under the same sections. The summary cites Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that interest and penalties can only be levied if the relevant statute expressly provides for it. It concludes that the orders for recovering interest, redemption fine, and penalty in these cases are unsustainable due to the absence of specific legal provisions. Additionally, it addresses the issue of time limitation, stating that the demand is time-barred as there was no suppression of facts, and the extended period u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, cannot be invoked. Consequently, the CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal) set aside the impugned orders regarding interest, redemption fine, penalty, and confiscation of goods.
Legal issues regarding the recovery of IGST/customs duty, interest, redemption fine, and penalty in connection with imports made under the Advance Authorization scheme. It states that while provisions exist for recovering IGST u/s 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, there are no specific provisions for recovering interest, fine, and penalty under the same sections. The summary cites Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that interest and penalties can only be levied if the relevant statute expressly provides for it. It concludes that the orders for recovering interest, redemption fine, and penalty in these cases are unsustainable due to the absence of specific legal provisions. Additionally, it addresses the issue of time limitation, stating that the demand is time-barred as there was no suppression of facts, and the extended period u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, cannot be invoked. Consequently, the CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal) set aside the impugned orders regarding interest, redemption fine, penalty, and confiscation of goods.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
