Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
Whether customs duty was payable on re-imported pharmaceuticals cleared for destruction: held that Rule 31, Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, prohibits import of drugs with under 60% residual shelf life except where permitted solely for destruction, and such permission does not itself waive duty at customs. The proper course was assessment and demand of duty at clearance or invocation of section 23 Customs Act for remission by relinquishing title; the adjudicating authority failed to examine whether duty should have been levied or remission claimed. Because permission limited use to destruction, no penalty for illegal import arises; matter remanded for fresh adjudication on duty liability. - CESTAT
Whether customs duty was payable on re-imported pharmaceuticals cleared for destruction: held that Rule 31, Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, prohibits import of drugs with under 60% residual shelf life except where permitted solely for destruction, and such permission does not itself waive duty at customs. The proper course was assessment and demand of duty at clearance or invocation of section 23 Customs Act for remission by relinquishing title; the adjudicating authority failed to examine whether duty should have been levied or remission claimed. Because permission limited use to destruction, no penalty for illegal import arises; matter remanded for fresh adjudication on duty liability. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.