Petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to submit detailed disclosures and documents for re-consideration; notices for 2019-23 may be adjudicated on me...
Confiscation and duty recovery quashed where licensing records show export obligation discharged; customs lacks jurisdiction absent licence annulment ...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10141 to 10160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, holding that the appellants remained liable for and their deposited amounts were properly appropriated towards customs duty on imported gold under the nominated-agency exemption scheme, resulting in cancellation of the bonds and discharge of duty liability. However, the Tribunal set aside imposition of penalty under s.112(a) of the Act and the orders of confiscation and redemption fine, finding no collusion or responsibility of the appellants for fraudulent diversion by the exporter. Consequently, extended limitation was not invoked against the appellants and no further action survives against them in respect of the appropriated duty.
CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, holding that the appellants remained liable for and their deposited amounts were properly appropriated towards customs duty on imported gold under the nominated-agency exemption scheme, resulting in cancellation of the bonds and discharge of duty liability. However, the Tribunal set aside imposition of penalty under s.112(a) of the Act and the orders of confiscation and redemption fine, finding no collusion or responsibility of the appellants for fraudulent diversion by the exporter. Consequently, extended limitation was not invoked against the appellants and no further action survives against them in respect of the appropriated duty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.