Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
