Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
