The Court held that adjudication by an officer who had previously conducted an audit on the same issue displayed a pre-disposed mind, setting aside the impugned order for independent reconsideration.
The Court held that a provisional bank account attachment under Section 83 had lapsed because the statutory one-year validity period had already expired. It ordered de-freezing of the account while allowing show cause proceedings to continue.
The Court noted that the writ petition challenging alleged fraudulent ITC was dismissed but allowed additional time to pursue a statutory appeal. The ruling permits the appeal to be filed without being treated as time-barred.
The Court held that a provisional attachment order under Section 83 ceases to operate after one year. As the order had expired, the bank and Sub-Registrar were directed not to restrict transactions.
The Court examined whether rectified refund applications filed after deficiency memos remained within the two-year limit. It held that the authority acted as per prevailing rules and the claim was time-barred.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the revocation of a customs broker licence for misdeclaring consignor details in diplomatic cargo. The ruling confirms findings of regulatory violations that facilitated gold smuggling.
The Court held that the Department could not establish delivery of hearing notices or the order dispatched through speed post. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after providing documents and a proper hearing.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that parts replaced during warranty and AMC periods are taxable, applying the Supreme Court’s Tata Motors judgment. Tax liability arises even if no direct payment is charged to customers.
The Tribunal held that betel nuts could not be confiscated because the department failed to prove smuggling as required under Section 123. With no valid evidence beyond the ARDF report, both confiscation and penalties were set aside.
The Court held that pre-SCN consultation became discretionary after the 2020 amendment, rendering the petitioner’s challenge untenable. It directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.
