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...
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 
