Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
CESTAT held that the customs authorities could not deny the preferential rate of duty under N/N. 46/2011-Cus. solely on the basis of an FTA Cell letter alleging that the relevant Certificate of Origin was "inauthentic," without producing the underlying verification report. In absence of this primary document, the conclusion of inauthenticity was treated as hearsay and legally unsustainable. Further, earlier imports under six separate Bills of Entry, supported by different Certificates of Origin, could not be discredited merely by association with the disputed certificate, especially when their assessments had attained finality and were never challenged. Consequently, CESTAT set aside the confirmed demands, and the appeals filed by M/s. X were allowed in entirety.
CESTAT held that the customs authorities could not deny the preferential rate of duty under N/N. 46/2011-Cus. solely on the basis of an FTA Cell letter alleging that the relevant Certificate of Origin was "inauthentic," without producing the underlying verification report. In absence of this primary document, the conclusion of inauthenticity was treated as hearsay and legally unsustainable. Further, earlier imports under six separate Bills of Entry, supported by different Certificates of Origin, could not be discredited merely by association with the disputed certificate, especially when their assessments had attained finality and were never challenged. Consequently, CESTAT set aside the confirmed demands, and the appeals filed by M/s. X were allowed in entirety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
