Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The CESTAT held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal concerning confiscation of gold jewelry, despite arguments of maintainability. While confiscation u/ss 77, 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act for non-declaration was valid, absolute confiscation was set aside. The appellant was allowed to redeem the gold jewelry on payment of Rs. 50,000 as fine, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000. The CESTAT found no justification for absolute confiscation, as the government does not survive on confiscatory proceeds, and wrongful import could be addressed by monetary measures. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The CESTAT held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal concerning confiscation of gold jewelry, despite arguments of maintainability. While confiscation u/ss 77, 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act for non-declaration was valid, absolute confiscation was set aside. The appellant was allowed to redeem the gold jewelry on payment of Rs. 50,000 as fine, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000. The CESTAT found no justification for absolute confiscation, as the government does not survive on confiscatory proceeds, and wrongful import could be addressed by monetary measures. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.