Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Where immovable property was transferred under a registered agreement to sell cum irrevocable power of attorney, with full consideration received and possession already handed over, the Tribunal treated the sale proceeds as linked to that land and not as a separate basis for retaining equivalent-value attachment of other assets. It held that the Enforcement Directorate could proceed against the land itself after due process and notice to the buyer, and that the attached movable property was to be released if the appellants furnished an undertaking disclaiming any claim over the land; otherwise, the attachment would continue. The separate provisional attachment of seized cash was unsustained because no independent justification was shown.
Where immovable property was transferred under a registered agreement to sell cum irrevocable power of attorney, with full consideration received and possession already handed over, the Tribunal treated the sale proceeds as linked to that land and not as a separate basis for retaining equivalent-value attachment of other assets. It held that the Enforcement Directorate could proceed against the land itself after due process and notice to the buyer, and that the attached movable property was to be released if the appellants furnished an undertaking disclaiming any claim over the land; otherwise, the attachment would continue. The separate provisional attachment of seized cash was unsustained because no independent justification was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.