Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The CESTAT set aside the dismissal of the appellants' common compounding application under Rule 4(3) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005, holding that the rejection without hearing violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the Chief Commissioner erred in bypassing the mandatory procedure under Rule 4(1) and the first proviso to Rule 4(3), prematurely invoking the second proviso without providing an opportunity of hearing. The decision was contrary to established judicial precedent affirming the maintainability of compounding applications before adjudication or issuance of show cause notices. The matter was remanded, directing the Chief Commissioner to reconsider the compounding application after determination of duty, interest, and penalty by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with restoration of the application for fresh adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
