Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Prior to the amendment of section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act effective from 16.08.2024, the Customs Act provisions on interest, offences and penalties did not apply to IGST leviable under section 3(7). Applying the Bombay HC rulings in A.R. Sulphonates and Mahindra & Mahindra, the Tribunal held that interest, redemption fine and penalty for the period governed by the unamended provision were without authority of law. The impugned order was therefore set aside to that extent. The confirmation and recovery of IGST itself was not disturbed and was upheld.
Prior to the amendment of section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act effective from 16.08.2024, the Customs Act provisions on interest, offences and penalties did not apply to IGST leviable under section 3(7). Applying the Bombay HC rulings in A.R. Sulphonates and Mahindra & Mahindra, the Tribunal held that interest, redemption fine and penalty for the period governed by the unamended provision were without authority of law. The impugned order was therefore set aside to that extent. The confirmation and recovery of IGST itself was not disturbed and was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
