Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
CESTAT upheld the State Tribunal's factual finding that the movement of goods from the appellant's Indapur unit (Maharashtra) to its Haridwar outlet (Uttarakhand) was occasioned by purchase orders issued by the buyer, constituting an inter-State sale under section 3(a) rather than an intra-enterprise branch transfer under section 6A. The Tribunal's conclusion relied on purchase orders, invoices, stock-transfer challans, lorry receipts and witness statements showing pre-existing contracts of sale and buyer-specific specifications; these findings were not disturbed. However, CESTAT set aside the penalty under section 29(3) MVAT Act as the show-cause procedure was deficient. Appeal allowed in part.
CESTAT upheld the State Tribunal's factual finding that the movement of goods from the appellant's Indapur unit (Maharashtra) to its Haridwar outlet (Uttarakhand) was occasioned by purchase orders issued by the buyer, constituting an inter-State sale under section 3(a) rather than an intra-enterprise branch transfer under section 6A. The Tribunal's conclusion relied on purchase orders, invoices, stock-transfer challans, lorry receipts and witness statements showing pre-existing contracts of sale and buyer-specific specifications; these findings were not disturbed. However, CESTAT set aside the penalty under section 29(3) MVAT Act as the show-cause procedure was deficient. Appeal allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
