Cash routed to non-existent firm deemed proceeds of crime; laundered funds and properties attachable, provisional attachments confirmed; two accounts ...
Continuation of Section 73 service-tax proceedings after provider's death (construing s.65(7)) - held to abate; posthumous OIO and recoveries invalida...
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.