Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
CESTAT held that the two imported tugboats are classifiable under Chapter Heading 89.04 and constitute ships/boats, not "machinery, equipment or tools," thereby denying the appellant benefit of Notification No.72/2017-Cus. The Tribunal sustained invocation of the extended period of limitation. It directed the AA to compute the differential duty after allowing any allowable drawback, adjust duties already paid when calculating interest, and impose a penalty under s.114A equal to the differential duty (redemption fine and exact quantum to be determined by the AA). The penalty under s.114AA was set aside. The technical administrator was held liable to penalty under s.112(a)(ii) for filing bills of entry claiming the ineligible exemption. Appeal allowed in part; remitted for consequential computation.
CESTAT held that the two imported tugboats are classifiable under Chapter Heading 89.04 and constitute ships/boats, not "machinery, equipment or tools," thereby denying the appellant benefit of Notification No.72/2017-Cus. The Tribunal sustained invocation of the extended period of limitation. It directed the AA to compute the differential duty after allowing any allowable drawback, adjust duties already paid when calculating interest, and impose a penalty under s.114A equal to the differential duty (redemption fine and exact quantum to be determined by the AA). The penalty under s.114AA was set aside. The technical administrator was held liable to penalty under s.112(a)(ii) for filing bills of entry claiming the ineligible exemption. Appeal allowed in part; remitted for consequential computation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
