Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
CESTAT partly allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that a demand founded solely on comparison of Form 26AS/IT returns with ST-3 without further inquiry was unsustainable; amounts shown as reimbursements under contracts where the appellant acted as a "pure agent" on actuals are not includible in taxable consideration, so the demand on such reimbursements was set aside. Extended-period demands were time-barred and therefore quashed. Confirmed demands under "Legal Charges" paid under reverse-charge were set aside on merits and for time-bar, given evidence of consultants' tax payment and the likelihood of input-credit neutralization. However, a late-filing fee imposed on the appellant was upheld.
CESTAT partly allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that a demand founded solely on comparison of Form 26AS/IT returns with ST-3 without further inquiry was unsustainable; amounts shown as reimbursements under contracts where the appellant acted as a "pure agent" on actuals are not includible in taxable consideration, so the demand on such reimbursements was set aside. Extended-period demands were time-barred and therefore quashed. Confirmed demands under "Legal Charges" paid under reverse-charge were set aside on merits and for time-bar, given evidence of consultants' tax payment and the likelihood of input-credit neutralization. However, a late-filing fee imposed on the appellant was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.