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 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10161 to 10180 of 96556 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.