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 allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order denying exemption under AIFTA and imposing redemption fine under s.125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, exceeded its jurisdiction by fastening redemption fine when the original proceedings had not ordered redemption on payment of fine, reiterating that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position for exercising appellate rights. The Tribunal found no allegation or finding that the goods did not originate in Thailand, nor any challenge to the authenticity or validity of the certificates of origin, rendering denial of exemption and consequent recovery under s.28 unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order denying exemption under AIFTA and imposing redemption fine under s.125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, exceeded its jurisdiction by fastening redemption fine when the original proceedings had not ordered redemption on payment of fine, reiterating that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position for exercising appellate rights. The Tribunal found no allegation or finding that the goods did not originate in Thailand, nor any challenge to the authenticity or validity of the certificates of origin, rendering denial of exemption and consequent recovery under s.28 unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
