Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
