Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation...
Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
