COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
CESTAT analyzed a case involving seizure of 3499.750gm of gold allegedly smuggled from Myanmar. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish smuggling, noting lack of reasonable belief under Section 110 and 123 of Customs Act, 1962. The department failed to provide cogent proof of foreign origin or smuggling. Procedural irregularities, including non-compliance with Section 138B and principles of natural justice, further weakened the case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the seized goods were not liable for confiscation and the involved parties were not subject to penalties.
CESTAT analyzed a case involving seizure of 3499.750gm of gold allegedly smuggled from Myanmar. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish smuggling, noting lack of reasonable belief under Section 110 and 123 of Customs Act, 1962. The department failed to provide cogent proof of foreign origin or smuggling. Procedural irregularities, including non-compliance with Section 138B and principles of natural justice, further weakened the case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the seized goods were not liable for confiscation and the involved parties were not subject to penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4897 
