ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9181 to 9200 of 96407 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the anonymized importer and set aside the Commissioner's order dated 13.04.2007. It held that, since the REP licences in question were duly issued by the competent licensing authority and were not forged licences, customs duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant as a bona fide transferee, even if the original licences had been procured on the basis of fraudulent export or bank documents. CESTAT further held that the inculpatory statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible, as the mandatory procedure under s.138B, including examination of the maker as a witness and affording an opportunity for cross-examination, had not been followed. Consequently, the demand of duty, confiscation, and penalties were unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the anonymized importer and set aside the Commissioner's order dated 13.04.2007. It held that, since the REP licences in question were duly issued by the competent licensing authority and were not forged licences, customs duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant as a bona fide transferee, even if the original licences had been procured on the basis of fraudulent export or bank documents. CESTAT further held that the inculpatory statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible, as the mandatory procedure under s.138B, including examination of the maker as a witness and affording an opportunity for cross-examination, had not been followed. Consequently, the demand of duty, confiscation, and penalties were unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.