Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
CESTAT adjudicated a customs dispute involving procedural time limitations under Section 28(6) of the Customs Act. The tribunal found the Principal Commissioner's reasoning illogical, noting that the department unreasonably delayed proceedings beyond statutory timelines. Despite a corrigendum issued subsequent to the original show cause notice, the appellant had timely deposited requisite amounts and complied with legal requirements. The tribunal held that the proceedings initiated on 05.03.2018 were conclusively deemed closed, as the adjudication exceeded prescribed one-year limitation period. The personal hearing occurred on 27.09.2018, and the final order was passed on 16.12.2019, significantly breaching statutory timelines. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, effectively terminating the customs proceedings.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs dispute involving procedural time limitations under Section 28(6) of the Customs Act. The tribunal found the Principal Commissioner's reasoning illogical, noting that the department unreasonably delayed proceedings beyond statutory timelines. Despite a corrigendum issued subsequent to the original show cause notice, the appellant had timely deposited requisite amounts and complied with legal requirements. The tribunal held that the proceedings initiated on 05.03.2018 were conclusively deemed closed, as the adjudication exceeded prescribed one-year limitation period. The personal hearing occurred on 27.09.2018, and the final order was passed on 16.12.2019, significantly breaching statutory timelines. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, effectively terminating the customs proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
