The High Court quashed an Order-in-Original after finding that the petitioner alleged lack of notice and denial of hearing. It restored the proceedings for fresh consideration on merits.
The Madras High Court directed fresh consideration of an OBC-NCL certificate application in light of the Supreme Court’s clarification on income computation. It emphasized that the relevant guidelines must be considered while deciding eligibility.
The Tribunal held that penalties for abetment could not survive when the actual importer was neither identified nor proceeded against. The absence of a principal offender undermined the charge under Section 112(a).
The Tribunal held that while failures in supervision and due diligence were established, there was no conclusive proof of conscious involvement in fraudulent drawback exports. It upheld forfeiture of security deposit without revoking the licence.
The Tribunal held that the department could not reject a genuine Load Port Chartered Engineer’s Certificate in favour of a local report lacking supporting details. The declared transaction value was restored for customs assessment.
The Tribunal classified AKD Wax under Heading 34049090 based on test reports and HSN notes. However, it held that prolonged departmental acceptance of an earlier classification defeated allegations of suppression.
The Tribunal held that Rule 11(3) does not apply where common inputs are used for both exempted and dutiable products. Credit balances could continue to be utilised for payment of duty on dutiable goods.
The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority failed to properly analyse BIS guidance documents and the applicable Quality Control framework. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration through a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that test reports from two live consignments could not be mechanically applied to past imports without separate evidence. Each Bill of Entry was treated as an independent assessment.
The Tribunal held that meetings of shareholders and creditors were unnecessary where the transferor was a wholly owned subsidiary, no new shares were to be issued, and no compromise with stakeholders was proposed. The first motion application was accordingly allowed.
