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 dismissed the customs appeals filed by the appellant challenging reassessment of bills of entry under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted repeated non-appearance of the appellant/counsel and held that, in view of Section 129D(1A), no justification existed for granting adjournments beyond the statutory maximum of three, relying on SC precedent deprecating mechanical adjournments. On merits, following the jurisdictional HC ruling in a similar matter, CESTAT held that the appellant had unequivocally accepted the reassessment in writing, leaving no occasion for a further speaking order. The appeals were therefore dismissed both for non-prosecution and on merits.
CESTAT dismissed the customs appeals filed by the appellant challenging reassessment of bills of entry under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted repeated non-appearance of the appellant/counsel and held that, in view of Section 129D(1A), no justification existed for granting adjournments beyond the statutory maximum of three, relying on SC precedent deprecating mechanical adjournments. On merits, following the jurisdictional HC ruling in a similar matter, CESTAT held that the appellant had unequivocally accepted the reassessment in writing, leaving no occasion for a further speaking order. The appeals were therefore dismissed both for non-prosecution and on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
