Court held that Customs cannot detain seized goods without issuing a show cause notice within the statutory timeline. The ruling mandates release of goods when procedural safeguards under Sections 110 and 124 are violated.
The ruling holds that importing all components of an LED monitor in unassembled form qualifies as importing the finished monitor under Rule 2(a), requiring classification under CTI 85285200. Packaging materials must be classified separately.
The authority declined to classify incomplete indoor and outdoor AC units after finding the same issue was already before the Appellate Tribunal. The key takeaway is that advance rulings cannot proceed when identical questions remain under adjudication.
The authority refused to rule on the classification of imported BEV components because an identical issue was already pending before the Bombay High Court. The key takeaway is that advance rulings cannot be issued when the same question is under judicial consideration.
Tribunal held that Rule 8D disallowance cannot exceed the assessee’s total claimed expenditure and directed restriction of the 14A addition. The ruling clarifies limits on 14A disallowances where expenses are minimal.
Tribunal affirms major penalties for widespread delays and non-reporting of NTRs, STRs, and CBWTRs. Held that systemic AML lapses cannot be excused by technical issues; strict compliance is mandatory.
CESTAT Chennai held that mere technical defects in supplier invoices are not sufficient to disallow ISD distributed credit. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential benefits.
Calcutta High Court held that reversal of CENVAT Credit made was voluntary and doesn’t tantamount to pre-deposit within the meaning of the pre amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
NCLT Mumbai held that mere issuance of debit notes or raising of reconciliation issues at a later stage does not establish a “pre-existing dispute” within the meaning of Section 8(2)(a) of the Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code admitted as debt and default proved.
The Tribunal set aside the earlier order because it had relied on the now-recalled Ganpati Dealcom judgment while excluding pre-2016 funding from scrutiny. The matter has been sent back for fresh adjudication, ensuring the Benami allegations are reconsidered on merits.
