Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
CESTAT reiterated that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the department already knew of the exports and MEIS benefit claims from an earlier show cause notice on the same products and period; suppression and wilful misstatement were therefore not made out. It also held that customs could not deny or recover MEIS benefits while the scrips remained uncancelled, since DGFT had not completed cancellation proceedings. On both limitation and merits, the impugned demand and recovery action were unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
CESTAT reiterated that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the department already knew of the exports and MEIS benefit claims from an earlier show cause notice on the same products and period; suppression and wilful misstatement were therefore not made out. It also held that customs could not deny or recover MEIS benefits while the scrips remained uncancelled, since DGFT had not completed cancellation proceedings. On both limitation and merits, the impugned demand and recovery action were unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
