Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 M/s X against confirmation of anti-dumping duty, interest and penalty on import of injection moulding machines by invoking the extended limitation under s.28 of the Customs Act and penalty under s.114A. The Tribunal held that the statutory conditions for invoking s.114A and the extended period under s.28 are in pari materia and operate conjointly. Once the Commissioner (A) himself held that penalty under s.114A was not invocable, it necessarily followed that the requisite elements of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to trigger the extended period under s.28 were absent. Consequently, the extended limitation and resultant demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside to that extent.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against confirmation of anti-dumping duty, interest and penalty on import of injection moulding machines by invoking the extended limitation under s.28 of the Customs Act and penalty under s.114A. The Tribunal held that the statutory conditions for invoking s.114A and the extended period under s.28 are in pari materia and operate conjointly. Once the Commissioner (A) himself held that penalty under s.114A was not invocable, it necessarily followed that the requisite elements of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to trigger the extended period under s.28 were absent. Consequently, the extended limitation and resultant demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside to that extent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
