Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the seized foreign currency is not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act and therefore the onus lies upon the Revenue to prove that the currency was not obtained from authorized sources. The Tribunal found no evidence of smuggling, recognized the appellant's legitimate means of income (former academic and subsequent US employment), and concluded that absolute confiscation and penal measures were not warranted. The AIU officer was held to lack jurisdiction to investigate the foreign currency matter. Consequently, confiscation and penalty were set aside and the seized currency must be returned absent affirmative proof by the Revenue to the contrary.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the seized foreign currency is not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act and therefore the onus lies upon the Revenue to prove that the currency was not obtained from authorized sources. The Tribunal found no evidence of smuggling, recognized the appellant's legitimate means of income (former academic and subsequent US employment), and concluded that absolute confiscation and penal measures were not warranted. The AIU officer was held to lack jurisdiction to investigate the foreign currency matter. Consequently, confiscation and penalty were set aside and the seized currency must be returned absent affirmative proof by the Revenue to the contrary.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.