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...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the Additional Director General, Central Excise Intelligence (ADGCEI), cannot be deemed a "proper officer" under the Customs Act for issuing show-cause notices under Section 28(1) absent explicit territorial jurisdiction in the governing notification. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction must be specifically conferred and cannot be presumed. The relevant notification lacked any specification of territorial scope, unlike other notifications granting all-India jurisdiction. Consequently, the ADGCEI's powers under the subject notification were invalid. The Tribunal's finding that a "proper officer" must have both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction was endorsed. The HC concurred with the CESTAT's conclusion dismissing the appeal, affirming that the ADGCEI's issuance of the show-cause notice was unauthorized and beyond the scope of the Customs Act.
The HC held that the Additional Director General, Central Excise Intelligence (ADGCEI), cannot be deemed a "proper officer" under the Customs Act for issuing show-cause notices under Section 28(1) absent explicit territorial jurisdiction in the governing notification. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction must be specifically conferred and cannot be presumed. The relevant notification lacked any specification of territorial scope, unlike other notifications granting all-India jurisdiction. Consequently, the ADGCEI's powers under the subject notification were invalid. The Tribunal's finding that a "proper officer" must have both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction was endorsed. The HC concurred with the CESTAT's conclusion dismissing the appeal, affirming that the ADGCEI's issuance of the show-cause notice was unauthorized and beyond the scope of the Customs Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.