Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Cross-objections were held maintainable under Section 129A(4) of the Customs Act despite withdrawal of the departmental appeal, because they operate as an independent proceeding once filed. On merits, the imported vehicle was declared used but found brand new, and non-compliance with import policy and motor vehicle requirements justified confiscation under Section 111(d). However, the goods were treated as regulatory-breach goods rather than absolutely prohibited goods, so absolute confiscation was found excessive. The Tribunal therefore allowed redemption on payment of fine, applicable duty and interest, while leaving the reduced penalty undisturbed.
Cross-objections were held maintainable under Section 129A(4) of the Customs Act despite withdrawal of the departmental appeal, because they operate as an independent proceeding once filed. On merits, the imported vehicle was declared used but found brand new, and non-compliance with import policy and motor vehicle requirements justified confiscation under Section 111(d). However, the goods were treated as regulatory-breach goods rather than absolutely prohibited goods, so absolute confiscation was found excessive. The Tribunal therefore allowed redemption on payment of fine, applicable duty and interest, while leaving the reduced penalty undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.