Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Constitutional validity of Sections 104, 105, and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the legality of search and seizure operations conducted by the respondents. It examines whether the alleged acts or omissions constitute prohibited goods or evasion of duty exceeding fifty lakh rupees, rendering Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) inapplicable. The court held that while gold is not absolutely prohibited, failure to comply with conditions amounts to prohibited goods u/ss 2(33) and 11 of the Act. The petitioners' alleged acts prima facie constitute prohibited goods, and the offence being cognizable with punishment up to 7 years, Section 155 of Cr.P.C. is inapplicable. Consequently, the court dismissed the stay applications, prima facie finding no grounds to grant a stay at this stage, subject to deciding the constitutional validity of the provisions in the main writ petitions.
Constitutional validity of Sections 104, 105, and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the legality of search and seizure operations conducted by the respondents. It examines whether the alleged acts or omissions constitute prohibited goods or evasion of duty exceeding fifty lakh rupees, rendering Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) inapplicable. The court held that while gold is not absolutely prohibited, failure to comply with conditions amounts to prohibited goods u/ss 2(33) and 11 of the Act. The petitioners' alleged acts prima facie constitute prohibited goods, and the offence being cognizable with punishment up to 7 years, Section 155 of Cr.P.C. is inapplicable. Consequently, the court dismissed the stay applications, prima facie finding no grounds to grant a stay at this stage, subject to deciding the constitutional validity of the provisions in the main writ petitions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
