The issue involved recovery of export refunds based on Rule 96(10). The Court held that omission of the rule without a saving clause removed the legal basis for such recovery. The key takeaway is that proceedings cannot survive when the underlying rule ceases to exist.
The issue involved excess credit utilisation beyond the 20% cap in certain months. The Tribunal held that the rule does not mandate monthly computation and must be assessed annually. The key takeaway is that compliance with overall yearly limits is sufficient under Rule 6.
The issue was whether valuation should be based on cost under Rule 8 or transaction value. The Tribunal held that Rule 8 does not apply when goods are also sold to independent buyers. The key takeaway is that mixed clearances require valuation under Rule 4, not cost-based valuation.
The issue involved delay in formal arrest despite recovery of contraband at the airport. The Court held that failure to produce the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours resulted in illegal detention. The key takeaway is that procedural safeguards on arrest must be strictly followed even in NDPS cases.
The issue involved lack of operational GST Tribunal despite its formal constitution. The Court noted that this forces taxpayers to approach the High Court unnecessarily. The key takeaway is that authorities must ensure timely functionality of statutory tribunals.
The issue involved suspension of a Customs Broker licence for alleged lapses in handling an import consignment. The Tribunal held that failure to verify importer credentials and ensure proper examination justified suspension. The key takeaway is that strict due diligence obligations apply to Customs Brokers.
The Tribunal examined statutory requirements of service, including consideration and parties involved. It held that absence of these elements makes the levy unsustainable. The decision clarifies the scope of taxable service.
The issue involved penalty despite proper documentation. The Court held that valid invoice and e-way bill establish ownership, making action under Section 129(1)(b) invalid.
The issue involved whether valuation for release should follow invoice value or enhanced value. The Court held that Section 129(1)(a) applies, mandating release based on invoice valuation.
The issue involved denial of credit due to absence of ISD registration. The Tribunal held that this was a procedural lapse and cannot justify denial of substantive credit.
