Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
