Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
