Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
CESTAT held that invoking jurisdiction under section 28AAA of the Customs Act without DGFT's license cancellation is invalid. The tribunal found procedural irregularities in the original order, determining that customs authorities cannot unilaterally challenge export scrip validity without DGFT's formal cancellation or initiation of cancellation proceedings. The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the exporter's responsibility is to prove goods reached the focus market, but penalties against the appellant and its director were unsustainable due to lack of substantive evidence and procedural defects. Appeal was consequently allowed, effectively nullifying the original confiscation and penalty orders.
CESTAT held that invoking jurisdiction under section 28AAA of the Customs Act without DGFT's license cancellation is invalid. The tribunal found procedural irregularities in the original order, determining that customs authorities cannot unilaterally challenge export scrip validity without DGFT's formal cancellation or initiation of cancellation proceedings. The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the exporter's responsibility is to prove goods reached the focus market, but penalties against the appellant and its director were unsustainable due to lack of substantive evidence and procedural defects. Appeal was consequently allowed, effectively nullifying the original confiscation and penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
