Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT held that the imported gold pendants are classifiable under CTH 7113 1910, as declared by the appellant, and not under CTH 7108 1300 as held by the lower authorities. Relying on HC precedent, the Tribunal ruled that DGFT Notifications dated 24.08.2019 and 18.12.2019, and subsequent Notification No. 22/2021 expanding the restriction, could not be applied retrospectively, as the goods were freely importable on the date of import. The pendants, being wearable jewellery of 99.99% purity, were not prohibited goods. Consequently, the demand, confiscation and penalties were held unsustainable and the Commissioner's order was set aside, allowing the appeal.
CESTAT held that the imported gold pendants are classifiable under CTH 7113 1910, as declared by the appellant, and not under CTH 7108 1300 as held by the lower authorities. Relying on HC precedent, the Tribunal ruled that DGFT Notifications dated 24.08.2019 and 18.12.2019, and subsequent Notification No. 22/2021 expanding the restriction, could not be applied retrospectively, as the goods were freely importable on the date of import. The pendants, being wearable jewellery of 99.99% purity, were not prohibited goods. Consequently, the demand, confiscation and penalties were held unsustainable and the Commissioner's order was set aside, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
