Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT held that the statutory definition of 'importer' in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 is unambiguous and confined to the period between importation and clearance for home consumption; only a person exercising ownership, effective control or lien over goods during that period qualifies as importer. The appellant had no evidence of control or interest prior to clearance and acquired ownership only post-clearance, hence did not qualify as importer and was not liable under Section 28 for customs duty or interest. Absolute confiscation was unsustainable as gold is restricted, not prohibited; neither knowledge nor reason-to-believe under Section 111 was established, so penalty under Section 112(b)(i) failed. The impugned order was set aside and the original adjudication restored.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
