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 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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
