Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as transferee of validly issued Gold Replenishment Licences, was not liable to customs duty or confiscation merely because the original licences may have been procured through fraud by others. Relying on its earlier precedent, the Tribunal held that where the licensing authority has actually issued licences and they are not forged, exemption cannot be denied to either the original holder or bona fide purchaser during the licence validity. The Tribunal further held that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible as evidence since the mandatory procedure under section 138B, including examination and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as transferee of validly issued Gold Replenishment Licences, was not liable to customs duty or confiscation merely because the original licences may have been procured through fraud by others. Relying on its earlier precedent, the Tribunal held that where the licensing authority has actually issued licences and they are not forged, exemption cannot be denied to either the original holder or bona fide purchaser during the licence validity. The Tribunal further held that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible as evidence since the mandatory procedure under section 138B, including examination and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
