Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
The dominant issue was whether an import licence condition stating that import of gold dore bars was "subject to" a 2012 customs notification barred availment of a separate 2008 exemption notification. The tribunal held that the licence did not expressly prohibit other applicable exemptions; therefore, if an exemption notification fully exempted duty, the importer could lawfully claim it notwithstanding the licence reference to the 2012 notification, and the Commissioner's "if and only if" reading was unsustainable. It further held that customs could not question the validity of a DGFT-issued licence unless it was cancelled by DGFT, and hence duty demand under s.28(1), penalty under s.112(a)(ii), and redemption fine could not survive; the order was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether an import licence condition stating that import of gold dore bars was "subject to" a 2012 customs notification barred availment of a separate 2008 exemption notification. The tribunal held that the licence did not expressly prohibit other applicable exemptions; therefore, if an exemption notification fully exempted duty, the importer could lawfully claim it notwithstanding the licence reference to the 2012 notification, and the Commissioner's "if and only if" reading was unsustainable. It further held that customs could not question the validity of a DGFT-issued licence unless it was cancelled by DGFT, and hence duty demand under s.28(1), penalty under s.112(a)(ii), and redemption fine could not survive; the order was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.