Tax authority's substitution of projected figures with actuals overturned; original acquisition valuation upheld; transfer pricing issues remitted for...
Beneficial owner held liable for differential customs duty; royalties added under Rule 10(1)(c); confiscation, penalties under s.111(m), s.114A, s.112...
CESTAT held that the show-cause notice seeking revocation of the customs broker licence and penalty was jurisdictionally defective because it did not state the date of receipt of the offence report as mandated by Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013, a time limit treated as mandatory. Consequently, proceedings and consequential adverse findings premised on that notice are quashed to the extent they resulted in forfeiture of the broker's security deposit. The Tribunal declined to examine merits in view of the jurisdictional infirmity, set aside the impugned forfeiture order insofar as it affected the anonymized customs broker, and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue.
CESTAT held that the show-cause notice seeking revocation of the customs broker licence and penalty was jurisdictionally defective because it did not state the date of receipt of the offence report as mandated by Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013, a time limit treated as mandatory. Consequently, proceedings and consequential adverse findings premised on that notice are quashed to the extent they resulted in forfeiture of the broker's security deposit. The Tribunal declined to examine merits in view of the jurisdictional infirmity, set aside the impugned forfeiture order insofar as it affected the anonymized customs broker, and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
