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 "ethylene ripener" containing ethephon is an "insecticide" under Section 3(e) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, as ethephon is listed in its Schedule. Even if imported for non-insecticidal use, DGFT Notification No. 106/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 validly mandates an import permit from the Registration Committee, which the importers failed to obtain despite their undertaking before the Bombay HC. The goods, imported in violation of the notification and misdeclared to circumvent restrictions, were rightly held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (f) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option of re-export, failing which absolute confiscation and destruction would follow. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA on all appellants, including the customs broker, were upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
CESTAT held that the imported "ethylene ripener" containing ethephon is an "insecticide" under Section 3(e) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, as ethephon is listed in its Schedule. Even if imported for non-insecticidal use, DGFT Notification No. 106/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 validly mandates an import permit from the Registration Committee, which the importers failed to obtain despite their undertaking before the Bombay HC. The goods, imported in violation of the notification and misdeclared to circumvent restrictions, were rightly held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (f) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option of re-export, failing which absolute confiscation and destruction would follow. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA on all appellants, including the customs broker, were upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
