Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the appeal was maintainable despite the baggage-related objection because the department had proceeded on a smuggling case, so the section 129A bar for baggage orders did not apply. It also held that statements of unexamined witnesses could not be used to support valuation, and accepted the manufacturer's confirmed invoice as the proper basis for valuing the Jacob watch. The remand on cross-examination and valuation was set aside, confiscation was upheld, and the condition restricting redemption to re-export was struck down. The appellant was left free to redeem the goods for home consumption or re-export on payment of the stated dues, and the penalties were reduced.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was maintainable despite the baggage-related objection because the department had proceeded on a smuggling case, so the section 129A bar for baggage orders did not apply. It also held that statements of unexamined witnesses could not be used to support valuation, and accepted the manufacturer's confirmed invoice as the proper basis for valuing the Jacob watch. The remand on cross-examination and valuation was set aside, confiscation was upheld, and the condition restricting redemption to re-export was struck down. The appellant was left free to redeem the goods for home consumption or re-export on payment of the stated dues, and the penalties were reduced.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
