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 extended period of limitation for recovery of export benefit demands under the Act of 1962 cannot be invoked as all relevant facts were known to the department when the first show cause notice (SCN) was issued. The issuance of multiple SCNs for the same period and products by different wings of the Customs department was impermissible, rendering the second SCN invalid. The charge of suppression of facts against the appellants was unsustainable, given the departmental divergence on product classification and lack of clarity. Furthermore, since the DGFT had not cancelled the MEIS scrips, Customs lacked jurisdiction to deny benefits or reclassify goods. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands was set aside on grounds of limitation and jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the extended period of limitation for recovery of export benefit demands under the Act of 1962 cannot be invoked as all relevant facts were known to the department when the first show cause notice (SCN) was issued. The issuance of multiple SCNs for the same period and products by different wings of the Customs department was impermissible, rendering the second SCN invalid. The charge of suppression of facts against the appellants was unsustainable, given the departmental divergence on product classification and lack of clarity. Furthermore, since the DGFT had not cancelled the MEIS scrips, Customs lacked jurisdiction to deny benefits or reclassify goods. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands was set aside on grounds of limitation and jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
