Deductibility for charitable donations affirmed where payments to approved relief funds, even if CSR-driven, qualify under the donation deduction sche...
Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under N/N. 96/2008-Cus despite an import licence condition stating imports were "subject to" N/N. 12/2012-Cus. The Tribunal held that the licence condition merely subjected the import to the 2012 notification and did not expressly prohibit availing any other exemption otherwise available; hence, reading it as an "if and only if" duty-payment mandate was untenable. Relying on the primacy of DGFT instruments under the FTDR framework, it held customs could recover duty under section 28(1) only if the DGFT cancelled the licence. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty under section 112(a)(i) were set aside and the appeal was allowed - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under N/N. 96/2008-Cus despite an import licence condition stating imports were "subject to" N/N. 12/2012-Cus. The Tribunal held that the licence condition merely subjected the import to the 2012 notification and did not expressly prohibit availing any other exemption otherwise available; hence, reading it as an "if and only if" duty-payment mandate was untenable. Relying on the primacy of DGFT instruments under the FTDR framework, it held customs could recover duty under section 28(1) only if the DGFT cancelled the licence. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty under section 112(a)(i) were set aside and the appeal was allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
