The Tribunal ruled that issuing only three hearing notices does not satisfy principles of natural justice. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity.
CESTAT Mumbai held that order rejecting refund of excess CVD [Countervailing duty] paid on import of mobile handsets not sustainable since amendment of bill of entry under section 149 of the Customs Act is allowed mode of modifying assessment.
Andhra Pradesh held that neither the State Legislature nor the Central Legislature would have power, to levy tax on the sale of goods made beyond the territorial waters of India. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of setting aside the assessment orders and remanded the matter back.
The Tribunal held that an assessment under section 153C cannot go beyond the material specified in the satisfaction note. Since additions were based on different material, the entire assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that after the High Court invalidated section 153C proceedings, all subsequent tax adjustments including those involving ₹6.68 crore are unsustainable. Judicial finality bars further action.
The Tribunal observed that Form 10-IE was available on record before return processing and should have been considered. The assessment was remanded for fresh adjudication under section 115BAC.
The regulator introduced wide-ranging amendments to AML and KYC norms, covering customer risk confidentiality, STR handling, and onboarding safeguards. The key takeaway is tighter compliance standards combined with clearer exemptions and operational clarity for IFSC entities.
The Tribunal held that once sale receipts are accepted as consideration from immovable property, they cannot be taxed as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessment was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
CESTAT Delhi held that rejection of declared value and re-determination of the same merely on presumptions and assumptions without independent evidence is not sustainable in law and hence liable to be set aside. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Karnataka High Court held that inadvertent error in shipping bills, which are permitted to be corrected under section 149 of the Customs Act, cannot be allowed to defeat substantive claim of exports under MEIS. Accordingly, writ disposed of with direction to re-consider the claim.
