The appellant who is the second purchaser, bought the car from ...

Appellant's Good Faith Purchase Confirmed; No Penalty Imposed; Duty Demand Set Aside by Commissioner.

January 25, 2016

Case Laws Customs AT

The appellant who is the second purchaser, bought the car from the first purchaser i.e. M/s. HFCL after a year or so, was not at all aware of the mischief played by the importer. His bonafides are confirmed by the Commissioner, who did not impose any penalty on him - demand of duty set aside - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

The appellant who is the second purchaser, bought the car from ...

Appellant's Good Faith Purchase Confirmed; No Penalty Imposed; Duty Demand Set Aside by Commissioner.

January 25, 2016

Case Laws Customs AT

You may also like:

Confiscation of imported liquor cases, imposition of penalties, and demand of duty. The Tribunal held that there was no intentional misdeclaration or fraudulent intent...

The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed u/s 114A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that penalty u/s 114A can only be imposed when duty is...

Service tax demand on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services rendered on reverse charge basis set aside as appellant did not collect service tax from service recipient....

Non-discharge of service tax - extended period invoked, service tax demanded - penalties imposed u/ss 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - appellant providing taxable...

Clandestine removal of goods denied CENVAT credit. Liability for duty, interest, and penalty from FY 2007-08 to 2011-12 assessed. Differential duty demand of Rs....

Clandestine removal demand based on electricity consumption not sustainable as mere electricity consumption cannot be the sole basis for determining duty liability....

The key holdings were: 1) Since the goods (areca nuts) were absolutely confiscated, the demand for duty on the appellants is unsustainable. 2) Penalty u/s 114A of the...

Appellant financed an individual for smuggling gold from Dubai and selling it in India. Penalty was imposed u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner held...

Warehoused goods - warehousing period expired - goods (wine) was rendered unfit for human consumption - relinquishment to the title to goods - The appellant is not...

Appellate Tribunal set aside orders denying remission of excise duty on indigenous goods and customs duty on imported goods destroyed in factory fire. Tribunal found no...

Levy of Penalty u/s 112 - Scope of the show cause notice - The CESTAT noted that, no show cause notice has been issued proposing the demand of differential duty or the...

Since Appellant were paying the duty utilizing the CENVAT Credit they cannot be charged for contravention of the provisions of Rule 4, 8(1), 8(3) & 8(3A) of the Central...

Liability to pay service tax for services provided to a foreign entity. The appellant argued that their turnover within the domestic market was below the threshold...

CESTAT set aside the confiscation of foreign liquors and various foreign goods as well as penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962...

Levy / Demand of Countervailing Duty (CVD) - whether the appellant, who purchased software from a subsidiary company and had it directly imported to them, could be...

Quick Updates: