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...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
