Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part by modifying the impugned order. It set aside the revocation of the Customs Broker's license and forfeiture of security deposit, as there was no violation of Regulations 1(4), 10(d), 10(n), and 13(12) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. However, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the Customs Broker for violating Regulation 10(e) due to failure to exercise due diligence in handling documents while filing import declarations. The Tribunal held that the Customs Broker cannot be faulted for misdeclaration by the importer, as they filed the bill of entry based on documents provided. The delay in inquiry proceedings was not properly explained, and the entire blame cannot be placed on the Customs Broker.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part by modifying the impugned order. It set aside the revocation of the Customs Broker's license and forfeiture of security deposit, as there was no violation of Regulations 1(4), 10(d), 10(n), and 13(12) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. However, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the Customs Broker for violating Regulation 10(e) due to failure to exercise due diligence in handling documents while filing import declarations. The Tribunal held that the Customs Broker cannot be faulted for misdeclaration by the importer, as they filed the bill of entry based on documents provided. The delay in inquiry proceedings was not properly explained, and the entire blame cannot be placed on the Customs Broker.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
