Money laundering property attachment and third-party encumbrance rights clarified; prior bona fide interests enforceable before confiscation, appeals ...
Profiteering in construction services for failure to pass input tax credit resulted in repayment exceeding the commensurate benefit and closure of pro...
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.