Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.