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...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the adjudicating authority lacked competence to confirm the proposals where service by email was not established as effective under s.28(1)/s.28(4) of the Customs Act; in light of s.17 of the General Clauses Act the appellant was not at fault. The Tribunal treated the proceedings as deemed concluded on the appellant's uncontested date (15 Jan 2023) under s.28(6), nullifying recovery of differential duty interest under s.28AA and penalties under ss.114A/114AA insofar as based on the defective service. The matter was remitted consistent with the Tribunal's findings on defective service and competence.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the adjudicating authority lacked competence to confirm the proposals where service by email was not established as effective under s.28(1)/s.28(4) of the Customs Act; in light of s.17 of the General Clauses Act the appellant was not at fault. The Tribunal treated the proceedings as deemed concluded on the appellant's uncontested date (15 Jan 2023) under s.28(6), nullifying recovery of differential duty interest under s.28AA and penalties under ss.114A/114AA insofar as based on the defective service. The matter was remitted consistent with the Tribunal's findings on defective service and competence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
