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 held that recovery of customs duty on inputs and packing materials procured duty-free by an Export Oriented Unit and subsequently destroyed per mandatory pharmaceutical protocols was impermissible. The adjudicating authority misconstrued the EOU scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and Notification 52/2003. The proper officer's satisfaction regarding non-compliance with Standard Input Output Norms was required before duty recovery. The Commissioner inappropriately invoked bond provisions without proper demand notice under Section 28 or justified appropriation of jurisdiction. The adjudicating authority exceeded jurisdiction by acting without establishing proper officer status under Section 142. No duty was recoverable on destroyed goods complying with pharmaceutical regulations and Foreign Trade Policy provisions. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that recovery of customs duty on inputs and packing materials procured duty-free by an Export Oriented Unit and subsequently destroyed per mandatory pharmaceutical protocols was impermissible. The adjudicating authority misconstrued the EOU scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and Notification 52/2003. The proper officer's satisfaction regarding non-compliance with Standard Input Output Norms was required before duty recovery. The Commissioner inappropriately invoked bond provisions without proper demand notice under Section 28 or justified appropriation of jurisdiction. The adjudicating authority exceeded jurisdiction by acting without establishing proper officer status under Section 142. No duty was recoverable on destroyed goods complying with pharmaceutical regulations and Foreign Trade Policy provisions. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
