Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the demand of customs duty. The Tribunal held that the Appellant had obtained a bonded warehouse license u/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the manufacturing activity was carried out within the licensed premises in the knowledge of the Revenue authorities since 1986. Despite the impracticable conditions imposed under the license, the Revenue did not raise any objections for over 30 years. The Tribunal observed that there was no allegation of diversion or misuse of imported goods by the Appellant. The amendment to the license in 2017, enlarging the bonded area to the entire factory premises, was treated as a curative measure with retrospective effect from 2014. Consequently, the demands raised by invoking Sections 28 and 72 of the Customs Act were set aside by the Tribunal.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the demand of customs duty. The Tribunal held that the Appellant had obtained a bonded warehouse license u/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the manufacturing activity was carried out within the licensed premises in the knowledge of the Revenue authorities since 1986. Despite the impracticable conditions imposed under the license, the Revenue did not raise any objections for over 30 years. The Tribunal observed that there was no allegation of diversion or misuse of imported goods by the Appellant. The amendment to the license in 2017, enlarging the bonded area to the entire factory premises, was treated as a curative measure with retrospective effect from 2014. Consequently, the demands raised by invoking Sections 28 and 72 of the Customs Act were set aside by the Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
