Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The Commissioner's rejection of the appellant's requests for conversion of DFIA Shipping Bills to Drawback Shipping Bills, relying on Para 3(a) of the CBIC Circular No. 36/2010-Customs, was held to be incorrect. The Gujarat High Court had previously ruled that Para 3(a) of the said Circular was ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the Commissioner's rejection was solely based on the struck-down Para 3(a), the impugned order was held to be bad in law. Furthermore, under Para 4.28(e) of the Handbook of Procedures 2009-14, the appellant could apply for conversion after the DFIA licenses were cancelled, which they promptly did. No time limit was prescribed for seeking conversion. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to conversion of the Shipping Bills into drawback shipping bills. The CESTAT allowed the appeal.
The Commissioner's rejection of the appellant's requests for conversion of DFIA Shipping Bills to Drawback Shipping Bills, relying on Para 3(a) of the CBIC Circular No. 36/2010-Customs, was held to be incorrect. The Gujarat High Court had previously ruled that Para 3(a) of the said Circular was ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the Commissioner's rejection was solely based on the struck-down Para 3(a), the impugned order was held to be bad in law. Furthermore, under Para 4.28(e) of the Handbook of Procedures 2009-14, the appellant could apply for conversion after the DFIA licenses were cancelled, which they promptly did. No time limit was prescribed for seeking conversion. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to conversion of the Shipping Bills into drawback shipping bills. The CESTAT allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
