Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10021 to 10040 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 and set aside the impugned order, holding that the Appellant's import of ENABLE 2005-CE under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus was valid. The Tribunal found the item was recognized as an input in the MEPZ LUT renewal of 26 Feb 2013 and thus fell within the SION coverage for the exported product; any non-conformity was procedural. No post-importation conditions of the notification were alleged to be breached. Consequently, confiscation under s.111(o) and penalty under s.112(a)(ii) could not be sustained. Allegations of mis-declaration were unsupported and s.111(m) was not invoked; appeal allowed, order set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the Appellant's import of ENABLE 2005-CE under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus was valid. The Tribunal found the item was recognized as an input in the MEPZ LUT renewal of 26 Feb 2013 and thus fell within the SION coverage for the exported product; any non-conformity was procedural. No post-importation conditions of the notification were alleged to be breached. Consequently, confiscation under s.111(o) and penalty under s.112(a)(ii) could not be sustained. Allegations of mis-declaration were unsupported and s.111(m) was not invoked; appeal allowed, order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
