Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the order of absolute confiscation of the impugned goods, earlier directed by the Commr. (Appeals), was unsustainable as the goods had already been re-exported. The appellant produced the Let Export Order dated 07.10.2019 showing re-export, which predated both the Review Order of the Commr. of Customs and the subsequent Revenue appeal. The Tribunal noted that the department had been duly informed of the re-export, yet the Commr. proceeded without considering this material fact. Applying the settled legal principle that confiscation cannot be ordered when goods are no longer available and have not been cleared under bond, CESTAT set aside the absolute confiscation and any consequential directions. The appeal of the assessee was accordingly allowed, and the Revenue's action was held to be unwarranted in law.
CESTAT held that the order of absolute confiscation of the impugned goods, earlier directed by the Commr. (Appeals), was unsustainable as the goods had already been re-exported. The appellant produced the Let Export Order dated 07.10.2019 showing re-export, which predated both the Review Order of the Commr. of Customs and the subsequent Revenue appeal. The Tribunal noted that the department had been duly informed of the re-export, yet the Commr. proceeded without considering this material fact. Applying the settled legal principle that confiscation cannot be ordered when goods are no longer available and have not been cleared under bond, CESTAT set aside the absolute confiscation and any consequential directions. The appeal of the assessee was accordingly allowed, and the Revenue's action was held to be unwarranted in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
