Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT held that the benefit of Notification No. 21/2016-CUS (ADD) dated 31.05.2016 is not to be provided to the appellant. The invocation of the extended period of limitation u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the consequent imposition of penalty u/s 114A of the Act were examined. The CESTAT found that the dispute related to bills of entry filed on 24.10.2016, 27.10.2016, and 31.01.2017, but the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2021. All the relevant information was available in the import invoice and bill of lading at the time of filing the bills of entry. There was no suppression of facts by the appellant. Therefore, the ingredients to invoke the extended period u/s 28(4) were not available. The demand for the bills of entry dated 24.10.2016, 27.10.2016, and 31.01.2017 was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued much after the normal period of limitation.
The CESTAT held that the benefit of Notification No. 21/2016-CUS (ADD) dated 31.05.2016 is not to be provided to the appellant. The invocation of the extended period of limitation u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the consequent imposition of penalty u/s 114A of the Act were examined. The CESTAT found that the dispute related to bills of entry filed on 24.10.2016, 27.10.2016, and 31.01.2017, but the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2021. All the relevant information was available in the import invoice and bill of lading at the time of filing the bills of entry. There was no suppression of facts by the appellant. Therefore, the ingredients to invoke the extended period u/s 28(4) were not available. The demand for the bills of entry dated 24.10.2016, 27.10.2016, and 31.01.2017 was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued much after the normal period of limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
