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 adjudication to the extent it proceeded without legal authority. The Tribunal held that breach of a pre-import condition attached only the statutory consequence expressly provided in s.3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - recovery of integrated tax - and does not permit imposition of confiscation under s.111(o) or penalty under s.114A of the Customs Act, 1962 as ancillary consequences. Further, in the absence of specific charging provisions authorising interest, redemption fine or other penalties, such monetary consequences cannot be imposed by invoking recovery machinery. The show-cause notice insofar as it sought those measures was quashed; appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudication to the extent it proceeded without legal authority. The Tribunal held that breach of a pre-import condition attached only the statutory consequence expressly provided in s.3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - recovery of integrated tax - and does not permit imposition of confiscation under s.111(o) or penalty under s.114A of the Customs Act, 1962 as ancillary consequences. Further, in the absence of specific charging provisions authorising interest, redemption fine or other penalties, such monetary consequences cannot be imposed by invoking recovery machinery. The show-cause notice insofar as it sought those measures was quashed; appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.