Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95705 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order insofar as it enhanced the penalty. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to submit the requisite documents within the thirty-day period, thereby contravening the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011, but confined the issue as narrow and consistent with prior Tribunal precedent. The adjudicating authority's imposition of a composite penalty of Rs.15,000 was held adequate to meet the ends of justice; the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in enhancing the penalty. Accordingly, the enhancement was quashed and the adjudicating authority's penalty of Rs.15,000 stands; appeal allowed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order insofar as it enhanced the penalty. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to submit the requisite documents within the thirty-day period, thereby contravening the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011, but confined the issue as narrow and consistent with prior Tribunal precedent. The adjudicating authority's imposition of a composite penalty of Rs.15,000 was held adequate to meet the ends of justice; the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in enhancing the penalty. Accordingly, the enhancement was quashed and the adjudicating authority's penalty of Rs.15,000 stands; appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
