Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged breaches of regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 turned on whether the broker failed core due diligence and advisory obligations. The charge under regulation 10(a) failed because the authorization was on record and its authenticity was undisputed, so later non-contact with the signatory could not invalidate it. The charges under regulations 10(f) and 10(n) failed as no specific special procedure was shown for the goods and stipulated online verification had been undertaken. Only regulation 10(d) was sustained for failure to advise the client appropriately; consequently, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate, while a monetary penalty was upheld. - CESTAT
Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged breaches of regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 turned on whether the broker failed core due diligence and advisory obligations. The charge under regulation 10(a) failed because the authorization was on record and its authenticity was undisputed, so later non-contact with the signatory could not invalidate it. The charges under regulations 10(f) and 10(n) failed as no specific special procedure was shown for the goods and stipulated online verification had been undertaken. Only regulation 10(d) was sustained for failure to advise the client appropriately; consequently, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate, while a monetary penalty was upheld. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
