Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned O-in-O and Commissioner (Appeals) orders, and directed grant of refund of SAD by holding the appellant entitled to benefit of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007. The Tribunal found that sale of timber after cutting/sawing does not defeat the notification where import was for subsequent sale, that timber is sold by quantity (CBM) not by piece count, and discrepancies between bill of entry and sales invoices do not justify denial of refund absent proof of diversion. The penalty imposed on the individual authorised signatory was quashed as unsustainable in view of entitlement to the claimed refund.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned O-in-O and Commissioner (Appeals) orders, and directed grant of refund of SAD by holding the appellant entitled to benefit of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007. The Tribunal found that sale of timber after cutting/sawing does not defeat the notification where import was for subsequent sale, that timber is sold by quantity (CBM) not by piece count, and discrepancies between bill of entry and sales invoices do not justify denial of refund absent proof of diversion. The penalty imposed on the individual authorised signatory was quashed as unsustainable in view of entitlement to the claimed refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
