Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT allowed the appeal against confiscation of imported goods and penalty imposition. The appellant had discharged duty liability on current and past imports by August 2013, yet goods were seized later without proper show cause notice under section 124 of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found no allegation of post-importation condition breaches and noted section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not extend to declarations made by importers. The original authority failed to establish grounds for invoking section 111(m) regarding different valuation requirements. Since appellant immediately rectified differential duty liability when advised goods should be assessed on retail sale price rather than transaction value, and discharged all duties with interest, no justification existed for sustaining confiscation under section 111 or penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT allowed the appeal against confiscation of imported goods and penalty imposition. The appellant had discharged duty liability on current and past imports by August 2013, yet goods were seized later without proper show cause notice under section 124 of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found no allegation of post-importation condition breaches and noted section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not extend to declarations made by importers. The original authority failed to establish grounds for invoking section 111(m) regarding different valuation requirements. Since appellant immediately rectified differential duty liability when advised goods should be assessed on retail sale price rather than transaction value, and discharged all duties with interest, no justification existed for sustaining confiscation under section 111 or penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.