Request-driven road restoration attracts reverse-charge GST, not governmental-function treatment or compensatory-damages status for business recipient...
Road restoration charges for commercial pipeline works are taxable Government services, with reverse charge liability and no public-function exemption...
Model-wise import cap monitoring cannot justify withholding used multifunction machines where all-India tracking is absent and full security is furnis...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 09.03.2022. 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 statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Consequently, penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were quashed, and goods confiscation was reversed. The decision emphasized that the exporter's liability cannot be established without conclusive proof of destination or document verification by relevant authorities.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 09.03.2022. 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 statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Consequently, penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were quashed, and goods confiscation was reversed. The decision emphasized that the exporter's liability cannot be established without conclusive proof of destination or document verification by relevant authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.