Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
Page of 4884
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 97661 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order...
Confiscation and duty recovery quashed where licensing records show export obligation discharged; customs lacks jurisdiction absent licence annulment or misrepresentation
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order insofar as it adjudged confiscation and directed recovery of duty foregone. The Tribunal held that once the licensing authority's records reflect discharge of export obligation, the Customs Department lacks jurisdiction to initiate recovery or confiscation on the basis of purported breach or stock-keeping assumptions unless the licensing authority has annulled the licence or recorded misrepresentation. Consequently the confiscation, ancillary penalties and demands for duties foregone were declared without legal basis and quashed, and any consequential recovery proceedings were remitted or directed to be withdrawn.
The CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order insofar as it adjudged confiscation and directed recovery of duty foregone. The Tribunal held that once the licensing authority's records reflect discharge of export obligation, the Customs Department lacks jurisdiction to initiate recovery or confiscation on the basis of purported breach or stock-keeping assumptions unless the licensing authority has annulled the licence or recorded misrepresentation. Consequently the confiscation, ancillary penalties and demands for duties foregone were declared without legal basis and quashed, and any consequential recovery proceedings were remitted or directed to be withdrawn.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.