Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
Subsequent purchasers of imported vehicles were not liable for differential customs duty arising from alleged misdeclaration of the year of manufacture, because they were not involved in the importation and could not be treated as importers for recovery under customs law. A joint and several demand confirmed against importers and purchasers was therefore unsustainable, following the governing Supreme Court principle on the definition of importer and recovery of duty. The penalties imposed on the purchasers also failed because they were consequential to the unsustainable duty demand. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and granted consequential relief.
Subsequent purchasers of imported vehicles were not liable for differential customs duty arising from alleged misdeclaration of the year of manufacture, because they were not involved in the importation and could not be treated as importers for recovery under customs law. A joint and several demand confirmed against importers and purchasers was therefore unsustainable, following the governing Supreme Court principle on the definition of importer and recovery of duty. The penalties imposed on the purchasers also failed because they were consequential to the unsustainable duty demand. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and granted consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
