Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
CESTAT adjudicated a dispute regarding seized traveller's cheques, finding the customs department's encashment and retention of funds arbitrary. The tribunal determined that the cheques, being non-perishable dollar-denominated instruments, should have been handled with greater procedural care. Critically, the court ruled that the appellant was entitled to interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit, less redemption fines and penalties, with payment mandated within two months. The decision emphasized preventing unjust enrichment and protecting property rights by recognizing the potential financial loss to the appellant due to unauthorized fund retention. Appeal was allowed, directing monetary compensation to the appellant.
CESTAT adjudicated a dispute regarding seized traveller's cheques, finding the customs department's encashment and retention of funds arbitrary. The tribunal determined that the cheques, being non-perishable dollar-denominated instruments, should have been handled with greater procedural care. Critically, the court ruled that the appellant was entitled to interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit, less redemption fines and penalties, with payment mandated within two months. The decision emphasized preventing unjust enrichment and protecting property rights by recognizing the potential financial loss to the appellant due to unauthorized fund retention. Appeal was allowed, directing monetary compensation to the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
