Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 29.05.2019. The tribunal held that the customs authority lacked jurisdiction to invoke section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically the statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were quashed, and the goods confiscation was set aside. The decision emphasized that the exporter's liability cannot be established without proper documentary proof and DGFT's explicit cancellation of the export license.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 29.05.2019. The tribunal held that the customs authority lacked jurisdiction to invoke section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically the statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were quashed, and the goods confiscation was set aside. The decision emphasized that the exporter's liability cannot be established without proper documentary proof and DGFT's explicit cancellation of the export license.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
