Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
CESTAT held that the subsequent purchaser cannot be considered the actual importer liable for customs duty. Mr. Arshad Vayal Peedika, who filed the Bill of Entry under transfer of residence, is the actual importer. The differential duty demand against the subsequent purchaser was set aside. Confiscation of the vehicle and penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA were quashed, as the appellant did not participate in import clearance or make false declarations. The tribunal emphasized that liability for customs duty rests with the original importer who clears goods, not subsequent bona fide purchasers. Appeal disposed of in favor of the appellant.
CESTAT held that the subsequent purchaser cannot be considered the actual importer liable for customs duty. Mr. Arshad Vayal Peedika, who filed the Bill of Entry under transfer of residence, is the actual importer. The differential duty demand against the subsequent purchaser was set aside. Confiscation of the vehicle and penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA were quashed, as the appellant did not participate in import clearance or make false declarations. The tribunal emphasized that liability for customs duty rests with the original importer who clears goods, not subsequent bona fide purchasers. Appeal disposed of in favor of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
