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...
The CESTAT held that Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, invoked by the Revenue for recovery of duty foregone, requires establishing collusion, willful misrepresentation or suppression of facts at the time of obtaining the instrument for exemption. Mere non-repatriation of export proceeds does not automatically erase eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal found no evidence of the required ingredients u/s 28AAA to justify recovery of duty foregone or cancellation of bank realization certificates. The alleged mis-declaration of goods did not warrant confiscation u/s 113(d) as the goods were not prohibited for export. The demands for recovery of drawback, duty foregone, and confiscation of goods were quashed. Penalties imposed on individuals were also set aside due to lack of sustainable grounds. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the appeals of exporters and individuals.
The CESTAT held that Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, invoked by the Revenue for recovery of duty foregone, requires establishing collusion, willful misrepresentation or suppression of facts at the time of obtaining the instrument for exemption. Mere non-repatriation of export proceeds does not automatically erase eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal found no evidence of the required ingredients u/s 28AAA to justify recovery of duty foregone or cancellation of bank realization certificates. The alleged mis-declaration of goods did not warrant confiscation u/s 113(d) as the goods were not prohibited for export. The demands for recovery of drawback, duty foregone, and confiscation of goods were quashed. Penalties imposed on individuals were also set aside due to lack of sustainable grounds. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the appeals of exporters and individuals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
