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 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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
