Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The CESTAT held that the vessel in question was a foreign-going vessel during its voyage between two Indian ports and thus, consumption of bunker fuel and stores was exempt from Customs duty under Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's payment of duty and filing of Bill of Entry, allegedly under Customs officers' direction, did not convert the nature of the voyage into a coastal run. The Tribunal found the demand of differential Customs duty and penalty under Section 114A unsustainable, as the Commissioner erred in disregarding relevant facts and relying solely on procedural compliance. The penalty and differential duty demand of Rs. 96,136 along with interest were set aside. The appeal was allowed, affirming that there was no intention to evade duty and the vessel's operation aligned with established legal precedents distinguishing foreign-going vessels from coastal runs.
The CESTAT held that the vessel in question was a foreign-going vessel during its voyage between two Indian ports and thus, consumption of bunker fuel and stores was exempt from Customs duty under Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's payment of duty and filing of Bill of Entry, allegedly under Customs officers' direction, did not convert the nature of the voyage into a coastal run. The Tribunal found the demand of differential Customs duty and penalty under Section 114A unsustainable, as the Commissioner erred in disregarding relevant facts and relying solely on procedural compliance. The penalty and differential duty demand of Rs. 96,136 along with interest were set aside. The appeal was allowed, affirming that there was no intention to evade duty and the vessel's operation aligned with established legal precedents distinguishing foreign-going vessels from coastal runs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
