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...
CESTAT ruled in favor of appellants in a gold jewelry smuggling case, overturning earlier decisions by Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found that appellants successfully demonstrated legitimate ownership of seized gold through consistent statements and documented RTGS payments to M/s Jain Jewellers. Revenue failed to establish reasonable belief of smuggling under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962. Distinguished from Om Prakash Khatri case where burden of proof was not met by intercepted persons. Tribunal emphasized that revenue's assumptions were insufficient without concrete evidence of smuggling, while appellants provided satisfactory explanations regarding gold ownership. Appeals allowed with merit.
CESTAT ruled in favor of appellants in a gold jewelry smuggling case, overturning earlier decisions by Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found that appellants successfully demonstrated legitimate ownership of seized gold through consistent statements and documented RTGS payments to M/s Jain Jewellers. Revenue failed to establish reasonable belief of smuggling under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962. Distinguished from Om Prakash Khatri case where burden of proof was not met by intercepted persons. Tribunal emphasized that revenue's assumptions were insufficient without concrete evidence of smuggling, while appellants provided satisfactory explanations regarding gold ownership. Appeals allowed with merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.