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 affirmed that the adjudicating authority lacks jurisdiction to reopen or review a final assessment order under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, which permits provisional assessment but does not authorize reopening after finality. The authority's attempt to revise the earlier assessment based on a High Court decision was erroneous, as the High Court clarified no final assessment order had been passed, and the proper remedy for aggrieved parties is to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128. The tribunal held that the appellants' claims for refund bypassing the prescribed appellate process were impermissible. Consequently, the appeals challenging the reopening of the assessment were dismissed for lack of merit, reinforcing that final assessment orders cannot be modified by the original adjudicating authority outside the appellate framework.
The CESTAT affirmed that the adjudicating authority lacks jurisdiction to reopen or review a final assessment order under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, which permits provisional assessment but does not authorize reopening after finality. The authority's attempt to revise the earlier assessment based on a High Court decision was erroneous, as the High Court clarified no final assessment order had been passed, and the proper remedy for aggrieved parties is to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128. The tribunal held that the appellants' claims for refund bypassing the prescribed appellate process were impermissible. Consequently, the appeals challenging the reopening of the assessment were dismissed for lack of merit, reinforcing that final assessment orders cannot be modified by the original adjudicating authority outside the appellate framework.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
