Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT affirmed that the imported de-humidifiers are classifiable under CTI 8509 80 00, not CTI 8479, because Chapter Note 1(f) to Ch.84 excludes goods falling within Ch.85 and Chapter Note 4 to Ch.85 confines the scope of CTH 8509. A demand issued under s.28 was validly invoked, including the extended limitation period, since the importer altered classification without notifying authorities and critical facts were concealed. The goods were held liable to confiscation under s.111(m). The penalty under s.114A on the importer was upheld as conditions for extended limitation and penalty coincide. The penalty proposed against the customs broker was set aside for lack of cogent evidence; the remainder of the adjudicatory order is sustained.
CESTAT affirmed that the imported de-humidifiers are classifiable under CTI 8509 80 00, not CTI 8479, because Chapter Note 1(f) to Ch.84 excludes goods falling within Ch.85 and Chapter Note 4 to Ch.85 confines the scope of CTH 8509. A demand issued under s.28 was validly invoked, including the extended limitation period, since the importer altered classification without notifying authorities and critical facts were concealed. The goods were held liable to confiscation under s.111(m). The penalty under s.114A on the importer was upheld as conditions for extended limitation and penalty coincide. The penalty proposed against the customs broker was set aside for lack of cogent evidence; the remainder of the adjudicatory order is sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
