Concessional Basic Customs Duty on Ethernet switches: classification as enterprise switches upheld, challenge dismissed for lack of substantial law qu...
Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
Demand of differential customs duty was examined on the dominant issue whether it can be fastened "jointly and severally" on more than one person for mis-declared imports, consistent with Article 265 requiring levy and collection only by authority of law. Relying on the principle that a taxing statute must clearly specify the taxable event, liable person, rate and measure, the tribunal held that joint and several recovery must be traceable to a specific statutory provision; while primary liability lies on the importer under s.28, s.147 permits recovery from an authorised agent in defined circumstances. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on applicability of such authority. - CESTAT
Demand of differential customs duty was examined on the dominant issue whether it can be fastened "jointly and severally" on more than one person for mis-declared imports, consistent with Article 265 requiring levy and collection only by authority of law. Relying on the principle that a taxing statute must clearly specify the taxable event, liable person, rate and measure, the tribunal held that joint and several recovery must be traceable to a specific statutory provision; while primary liability lies on the importer under s.28, s.147 permits recovery from an authorised agent in defined circumstances. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on applicability of such authority. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
