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...
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not available for a customs demand raised about four years after clearance, because the record showed a consistent earlier and later classification of the same goods without objection and supported a bona fide belief by the importer. It further held that non-imposition of penalty under Section 114AA did not, by itself, mean there was no suppression. Finding no misdeclaration or suppression on the facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order as time-barred and allowed the appeal solely on limitation, leaving the classification dispute undecided.
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not available for a customs demand raised about four years after clearance, because the record showed a consistent earlier and later classification of the same goods without objection and supported a bona fide belief by the importer. It further held that non-imposition of penalty under Section 114AA did not, by itself, mean there was no suppression. Finding no misdeclaration or suppression on the facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order as time-barred and allowed the appeal solely on limitation, leaving the classification dispute undecided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
