Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving jurisdictional challenges and tax exemption claims. The tribunal rejected arguments challenging the Assistant Commissioner's authority, emphasizing operational continuity in tax administration. The court clarified Article 12's limited applicability to fundamental rights and dismissed misinterpretations regarding state definition. Regarding exemption claims under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, the tribunal determined that market infrastructure structures were primarily commercial, thus ineligible for tax exemption. The tribunal found the appellant's conduct indicative of tax evasion, consequently upholding the extended limitation period, service tax demand, and penalty under sections 73, 75, and 77 of the Finance Act. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, confirming the original tax assessment and penalties.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving jurisdictional challenges and tax exemption claims. The tribunal rejected arguments challenging the Assistant Commissioner's authority, emphasizing operational continuity in tax administration. The court clarified Article 12's limited applicability to fundamental rights and dismissed misinterpretations regarding state definition. Regarding exemption claims under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, the tribunal determined that market infrastructure structures were primarily commercial, thus ineligible for tax exemption. The tribunal found the appellant's conduct indicative of tax evasion, consequently upholding the extended limitation period, service tax demand, and penalty under sections 73, 75, and 77 of the Finance Act. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, confirming the original tax assessment and penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.