Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 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 officers of DRI, including the Additional Director, are "proper officers" under s.28 of the Customs Act and thus competent to issue SCN, in line with the binding LB decision of the SC. However, on merits, CESTAT found that Appellant No. 1 had purchased the Mercedes car bona fide and Appellant No. 2 had only facilitated the purchase, without any collusion in mis-declaration, undervaluation, or violation of customs provisions. As they were not the importers and did not seek redemption under s.125, no duty demand or penal consequence could be fastened upon them. Consequently, the confiscation and penalties were set aside and the appeals were allowed in full.
CESTAT held that officers of DRI, including the Additional Director, are "proper officers" under s.28 of the Customs Act and thus competent to issue SCN, in line with the binding LB decision of the SC. However, on merits, CESTAT found that Appellant No. 1 had purchased the Mercedes car bona fide and Appellant No. 2 had only facilitated the purchase, without any collusion in mis-declaration, undervaluation, or violation of customs provisions. As they were not the importers and did not seek redemption under s.125, no duty demand or penal consequence could be fastened upon them. Consequently, the confiscation and penalties were set aside and the appeals were allowed in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
