Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Infrastructure facility: energy-efficient public lighting held integral to road projects, qualifying the operator as a developer and eligible for dedu...
Fourth Proviso to Section 153A: extended-period inquiry requires a reasonable, material-based satisfaction that escaped income likely exceeds the thre...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
