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...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order dated 21.10.2024, holding that the imposition of penalty could not be sustained. The Tribunal affirmed the Inquiry Officer's factual finding that the appellant did not contravene regulations 10(d) and 10(e) (and related provisions 11(d)/11(e)) of the CBLR, 2013, noting that subsequent reassessment of earlier Bills of Entry resulted in acceptance of the contested CTSH and grant of the Notification benefit and refund of differential duty. The Commissioner's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's report was procedurally unsound because he failed to issue a reasoned show-cause notice before overruling that report; accordingly the penalty and the impugned order were set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order dated 21.10.2024, holding that the imposition of penalty could not be sustained. The Tribunal affirmed the Inquiry Officer's factual finding that the appellant did not contravene regulations 10(d) and 10(e) (and related provisions 11(d)/11(e)) of the CBLR, 2013, noting that subsequent reassessment of earlier Bills of Entry resulted in acceptance of the contested CTSH and grant of the Notification benefit and refund of differential duty. The Commissioner's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's report was procedurally unsound because he failed to issue a reasoned show-cause notice before overruling that report; accordingly the penalty and the impugned order were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
