Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen or demand duty on alleged wrongful availment of MEIS benefits while the DGFT scrips remained valid and subsisting. The Court held that such incentives arise under the foreign trade policy and must be dealt with by the licensing authority; Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were wrongly invoked because the case did not involve imported goods or any short levy, short payment, non-levy, or non-payment of duty. A penalty under Section 114AA against the customs broker also failed because a mere misdescription in classification, without wilful intent, does not establish mens rea. The Tribunal's order and the penalty were set aside.
Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen or demand duty on alleged wrongful availment of MEIS benefits while the DGFT scrips remained valid and subsisting. The Court held that such incentives arise under the foreign trade policy and must be dealt with by the licensing authority; Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were wrongly invoked because the case did not involve imported goods or any short levy, short payment, non-levy, or non-payment of duty. A penalty under Section 114AA against the customs broker also failed because a mere misdescription in classification, without wilful intent, does not establish mens rea. The Tribunal's order and the penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
