Govt. of India Ministry of Finance Dept. of Revenue OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHENNAI-IV, CUSTOM HOUSE NO.60, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI 600 001 Date: 06-09-2026 PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 125/2026 Subject: - reg. ********* All the Importers, Exporters, General Trade, Port Terminal Operators, Shipping Lines/Shipping Agents, Container Freight Stations, Inland Container Depots and all other stakeholders concerned are hereby informed that, in the context of the ongoing ... ... ...

HON'BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate & Ms. Ushmeet Kaur Monga, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Chitra Srivastava, Authorized Representative ORDER P. K. CHOUDHARY: The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant assailing the Order-In-Appeal-35-COMMR-MEERUT-2018, dated- 20/04/2018 passed by Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Meerut. 2. The facts of the case i... ... ...

Partial de-notification reduces the Customs-notified premises of the Container Freight Station from 94,325 square metres to 82,800 square metres, excluding 11,525 square metres from Customs control. The retained area continues as the Customs Area under a revised layout plan identifying the retained and excluded portions. The operator's appointment as Custodian and approval as Customs Cargo Service Provider are confined to the retained Customs Area, while the validity and other terms of the existing appointment and approval remain unchanged.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT For the Petitioner : Sri. M. Kumar, Addl. Government Advocate. For the Respondent : None. ORDER The petitioner - State is before this Court assailing the order dated 17.03.2016, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 1886/2014. 2. The Assessing Authority had imposed the penalty on the respondent by invoking the provision as contained under Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act. The respondent claimin... ... ...

FEMA regulatory rationalisation entails withdrawal of circulars that have ceased to operate because of subsequent amendments, redundancy, overlap, or supersession by later directions. The withdrawn circulars concern External Commercial Borrowings, overseas rupee-denominated bonds, non-resident investments in tax-free non-convertible bonds, and the Money Transfer Service Scheme. Authorised persons must bring these changes to the attention of their concerned constituents, without affecting permissions or approvals required under other laws.

Under Rule 96, a shipping bill for IGST-paid exported goods is deemed to be the refund application only after GSTR-3B filing, Export General Manifest filing, and matching of shipping-bill and GSTR-1 invoice details. SB005 concerns invoice or shipping-bill data discrepancies, while SB006 concerns missing or inconsistent Export General Manifest data. GST-return errors may be corrected through Table 9A, but shipping-bill-side discrepancies may require customs reconciliation through a concordance table. Exporters should verify invoice, shipping-bill, manifest, registration, authentication, and return-data compliance before seeking automated refund processing.

Section 54(11) of the CGST Act allows withholding of a refund only where an appeal or other proceeding is actually pending and the Commissioner records a reasoned opinion that release would adversely affect revenue because of malfeasance or fraud. Mere contemplation of a future appeal cannot justify refusing to consider a refund arising from an appellate order. Rule 92(2) requires a reasoned order in Part A of Form GST RFD-07, following an opportunity of hearing. Appellate orders bind subordinate officers unless stayed by a competent forum.

Directors' remuneration paid as salary under a genuine employer-employee relationship is excluded from Service Tax and falls outside GST supply. A director's designation does not determine taxability; the relevant inquiry is the capacity in which services are rendered. Salary accounting, salary-related tax deduction, and disclosure as salary income support the employment character of payment. Form 26AS and financial statements may trigger scrutiny but cannot establish taxable value without reconciliation and verification of underlying transactions. Extended limitation requires evidence of wilful suppression or comparable culpable conduct, not merely return default or financial discrepancies.

NRI taxation depends on residential status and generally covers only income received in India, accruing in India, or deemed to accrue in India. Indian-source income may include employment, property, business, capital gains, and taxable NRO interest, whereas eligible NRE and FCNR interest remains exempt. Planning may use repatriable accounts, tax treaties and foreign-tax-credit mechanisms, and capital-gains relief. Compliance requires accurate residence classification, appropriate tax deduction on NRI property transfers, return filing where required, and foreign-asset disclosure by qualifying Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident individuals.

Section 107 provides three months from communication of an order for filing a GST appeal and permits condonation for sufficient cause only within a further one-month period. A communication date declared by an appellant in Form GST APL-01 may constitute deemed communication and commence limitation from that date. The restrictive view treats this as a statutory outer limit that excludes further extension under the Limitation Act, although a contrary judicial view permits wider condonation in appropriate cases. Taxpayers should monitor portal-uploaded orders and accurately state communication dates in appeal memoranda.

GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatches may trigger scrutiny and verification of input tax credit, but cannot alone establish wrongful availment. Final liability requires examination of reconciliation, invoices, books, electronic credit ledger, proof of receipt, and supplier-related material. Where denial relies on supplier non-payment under Section 16(2)(c), such default must be verified rather than presumed from non-reflection in GSTR-2A. A show-cause notice limits the grounds and tax heads of adjudication, while competing computations must be reconciled through a reasoned speaking order.

A sole proprietary concern has no legal identity separate from its proprietor; its trade name does not make it a distinct juristic person. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies where the drawer is a company, firm or association of individuals and vicarious liability is imposed on persons responsible for that separate entity's business. Where a cheque is issued from a proprietorship account, prosecuting the proprietor directly is sufficient and does not require separate arraignment of the proprietary concern. Allegations establishing the elements of cheque dishonour under Section 138 support maintainability, with no basis for quashing proceedings.

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits an appellate court to order a pre-deposit pending an appeal by the drawer convicted under Section 138. Its discretionary pre-deposit requirement does not extend to a company director who neither signed nor drew the cheque. Where another accused signed the cheque for the company and no specific complaint allegations directly implicated the director, the director falls outside the statutory expression "drawer". Consequently, a Section 148 pre-deposit condition cannot be imposed on that non-signatory director.

Rule 69(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 bars payment of gratuity while either departmental or judicial proceedings remain pending. The disjunctive term "or" requires withholding gratuity until both categories of proceedings are concluded; completion or exoneration in departmental proceedings does not permit release while judicial proceedings continue. Departmental and criminal proceedings have distinct purposes and standards of proof, so the outcome of one does not control the other. Rule 9(1) applies only after a finding of guilt and does not authorise gratuity payment during pending judicial proceedings. Gratuity becomes payable only after judicial proceedings conclude and final orders issue.

Penalty under Section 53(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act applies only where the person cannot show sufficient cause for the transit-related contravention. Whether sufficient cause exists depends on the facts. Inter-State movement of goods from Gujarat to Pondicherry, with temporary unloading explained as transshipment, does not attract the provision where no material establishes an intention to evade Karnataka tax. On those conditions, penalty for non-compliance with transit requirements is not leviable.

Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of concurrent factual findings on turnover discrepancies and estimation merely because another view of the evidence is possible. Reassessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was sustained where discrepancies between purchase turnover in books and monthly returns were supported by material, and disclosure in Form VAT-240 with an explanation of inadvertent omission did not satisfactorily explain the omissions. Interference requires perversity, absence of supporting material, or an error of law. Penalty and interest consequential to the sustained reassessment also remained valid because no independent legal error was established. No substantial question of law arose.

Refund of an ad hoc amount deposited as security under protest is sought together with interest at 6% or another appropriate rate. The writ petition was closed and disposed of, while preserving liberty to seek relief concerning interest and the pending assessment and reassessment proceedings. The substantive issues therefore concern recovery of a protested security deposit, entitlement to interest, and the continuing effect of unresolved assessment and reassessment proceedings.

Rechargeable lanterns, emergency lamps and study lamps with inbuilt rechargeable batteries are classifiable as portable electric lamps under Tariff Heading 8513 1090, rather than lighting fittings under Heading 9405 2010, where AC mains connection only recharges the battery. Disclosure of reclassification in departmental correspondence and monthly returns prevents a finding of suppression in an interpretative classification dispute; consequently, the extended limitation period cannot support demand, interest or penalty before February 2011. Differential duty and consequential interest remain payable after February 2011 because the revised classification applies, except demand already set aside for May to September 2012. Penalties are unsustainable absent suppression.

Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that a person dealt with goods while knowing that they were liable to confiscation. Distributors cannot be penalised for a manufacturer's alleged excise-duty default without evidence of their ownership or control of the manufacturer, or knowledge of the duty non-payment and consequent confiscability of the goods. Distributors and subsequent purchasers have no legal duty to verify whether the manufacturer properly paid central excise duty, as primary duty liability rests with the manufacturer. Penalties imposed on the distributors were therefore unsustainable.

Statutory interest on a service-tax refund accrues under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, as applied through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, when the refundable amount remains unpaid for three months after receipt of the original Section 11B refund application. The deeming provision for refunds granted through an appellate or court order does not defer the start of interest. A later communication that merely continues or reminds the authorities of the original claim is not a fresh refund application. Interest was therefore payable from expiry of three months after the original application until actual refund.