Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
CESTAT found that revocation of a certificate of origin was treated improperly as a verification under the Operational Certification Procedures; the Rules of Origin and Operational Certification Procedures do not permit unilateral revocation by a government authority, so such action cannot substitute for Article 16 verification, and was an extra-legal exercise. Recovery of duty foregone under the Customs rules was set aside because proper procedural notice as required by the Customs Act was not given; the cumulative rule of origin was applicable to the shipment and non-use of A Form did not negate cumulative origin. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT found that revocation of a certificate of origin was treated improperly as a verification under the Operational Certification Procedures; the Rules of Origin and Operational Certification Procedures do not permit unilateral revocation by a government authority, so such action cannot substitute for Article 16 verification, and was an extra-legal exercise. Recovery of duty foregone under the Customs rules was set aside because proper procedural notice as required by the Customs Act was not given; the cumulative rule of origin was applicable to the shipment and non-use of A Form did not negate cumulative origin. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
