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 found lack of jurisdiction in invoking section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were invalidated as the title of goods passed upon Let Export Order, and no conclusive proof of intentional misconduct was established. The tribunal emphasized that customs authorities cannot unilaterally challenge an export instrument without DGFT's formal cancellation proceedings.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 29.05.2019. The tribunal found lack of jurisdiction in invoking section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were invalidated as the title of goods passed upon Let Export Order, and no conclusive proof of intentional misconduct was established. The tribunal emphasized that customs authorities cannot unilaterally challenge an export instrument without DGFT's formal cancellation proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
