Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
CESTAT upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and Commr (A) that 449 gas cylinders illicitly removed from ship-breaking yards, contrary to Gas Cylinder Rules, 2016 and related regulations, were liable to confiscation under Ss. 111(d) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that penalty on the appellant under S. 112(a) and (b) for abetment was correctly imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant, though engaged in low-margin business, had violated the mandatory undertaking regarding destruction of cylinders and thus attracted confiscation and penalty. However, exercising discretion, CESTAT further reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1,40,000 to Rs. 40,000. The appeal was partly allowed to this limited extent and otherwise dismissed.
CESTAT upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and Commr (A) that 449 gas cylinders illicitly removed from ship-breaking yards, contrary to Gas Cylinder Rules, 2016 and related regulations, were liable to confiscation under Ss. 111(d) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that penalty on the appellant under S. 112(a) and (b) for abetment was correctly imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant, though engaged in low-margin business, had violated the mandatory undertaking regarding destruction of cylinders and thus attracted confiscation and penalty. However, exercising discretion, CESTAT further reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1,40,000 to Rs. 40,000. The appeal was partly allowed to this limited extent and otherwise dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
