Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
CESTAT appellate proceedings involving seized gold bars. Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove foreign origin of gold, with purity ranging 995.7 to 998.9. Revenue failed to establish 'reasonable belief' of smuggling under Customs Act. Seizure deemed improper as appellant falls under Section 123(1)(a)(i) as possessor. Tribunal directed opportunity for cross-examination of initial seizure officers and remanded case for fresh adjudication, requiring Adjudicating Authority to comprehensively reassess evidence. Appeal disposed with directions to conduct detailed reexamination, potentially leading to return of seized gold to appellant.
CESTAT appellate proceedings involving seized gold bars. Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove foreign origin of gold, with purity ranging 995.7 to 998.9. Revenue failed to establish 'reasonable belief' of smuggling under Customs Act. Seizure deemed improper as appellant falls under Section 123(1)(a)(i) as possessor. Tribunal directed opportunity for cross-examination of initial seizure officers and remanded case for fresh adjudication, requiring Adjudicating Authority to comprehensively reassess evidence. Appeal disposed with directions to conduct detailed reexamination, potentially leading to return of seized gold to appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.