Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
The appellant imported capital goods under an EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) license issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade). The department alleged mis-declaration of the year of manufacture to avail undue benefits under the TUF (Technology Upgradation Fund) Scheme. However, the Tribunal held that the Bill of Entry did not mention any year of manufacture, hence there was no mis-declaration. The appellant had not imported under TUF but only under EPCG which did not restrict the year of manufacture. The appellant did not obtain any undue TUF benefits. The exemption notification did not place any restriction on the year of manufacture for EPCG imports. The Commissioner of Customs cannot modify or add conditions to the EPCG license issued by DGFT. Alleged attempts to avail ineligible benefits from other ministries cannot be grounds for customs duty demand, confiscation or penalties under the Customs Act. The imported goods were not liable for confiscation u/ss 111(m) and 111(o) as the conditions were fulfilled. The penalty u/s 114A was also unsustainable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order against the appellant.
The appellant imported capital goods under an EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) license issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade). The department alleged mis-declaration of the year of manufacture to avail undue benefits under the TUF (Technology Upgradation Fund) Scheme. However, the Tribunal held that the Bill of Entry did not mention any year of manufacture, hence there was no mis-declaration. The appellant had not imported under TUF but only under EPCG which did not restrict the year of manufacture. The appellant did not obtain any undue TUF benefits. The exemption notification did not place any restriction on the year of manufacture for EPCG imports. The Commissioner of Customs cannot modify or add conditions to the EPCG license issued by DGFT. Alleged attempts to avail ineligible benefits from other ministries cannot be grounds for customs duty demand, confiscation or penalties under the Customs Act. The imported goods were not liable for confiscation u/ss 111(m) and 111(o) as the conditions were fulfilled. The penalty u/s 114A was also unsustainable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
