Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the confiscation and penalty. The tribunal held that Customs officers failed to form an independent reasonable belief of smuggling under s.110(1) CA 1962, having merely adopted CISF's initial detention; thus the seizure was arbitrary. The appellant subsequently produced verifiable documents proving domestic procurement and conversion of old jewellery into seven gold bars and silver, discharging the evidential burden under s.123 CA 1962. No cogent material established foreign origin or illicit importation of the bars; foreign markings alone were insufficient. Consequently the order of absolute confiscation under ss.112(a) and 112(b) and the attendant penalty were unsustainable and were set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the confiscation and penalty. The tribunal held that Customs officers failed to form an independent reasonable belief of smuggling under s.110(1) CA 1962, having merely adopted CISF's initial detention; thus the seizure was arbitrary. The appellant subsequently produced verifiable documents proving domestic procurement and conversion of old jewellery into seven gold bars and silver, discharging the evidential burden under s.123 CA 1962. No cogent material established foreign origin or illicit importation of the bars; foreign markings alone were insufficient. Consequently the order of absolute confiscation under ss.112(a) and 112(b) and the attendant penalty were unsustainable and were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
