Follow:
- Next story The Chennai Bench of Custom, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently set aside the confiscation made by the Commissioner of Custom Sea on the ground that the jewellery imported was not prohibited, even if the permissible limit for importation of jewellery has been exceeded, it is unlawful to deny the option to redeem goods on payment of fine after confiscation.
- Previous story In absence of ‘intent to conceal’ cannot be construed as smuggled: CESTAT CESTAT directs Customs Authorities to return confiscated gold to Foreign National- lack of evidence and flimsy investigation by the authorities. Held that in the absence of ‘intent to conceal’ cannot be construed as smuggled. Subscribe to updates Ahamed Gani Natchiar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Appearances For Appellant: Ms. Shabnam Banu- Appearances For Respondent: Department Representative- Joint Commissioner CESTAT directs Customs Authorities to return confiscated gold to Foreign National- lack of evidence and flimsy investigation by the authorities. Held that in the absence of ‘intent to conceal’ cannot be construed as smuggled. This appeal arose before The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) challenging on the absolute confiscation of 626 grams of gold jewellery that belonged to the Appellant, a resident
Recent Posts
- Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL) Invites Applications For The Posts Of Legal Consultant
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court retired Chief Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar as the head of a committee to monitor drawal of lots to allot those shops.
- http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxb78Oa7ezNKaNpx43SZ44IikBbMRnf-Lk?si=X6OiU1XOkAOMF85U
- Case allowed THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.26105 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.29381 and 29384 of 2025 1.Union of India   Rep. by the Secretary   Government of India
- https://x.com/i/status/2014167479489106066 [22/01, 08:15] Sekarreporter: Service Law – Pensionary Benefits – Condonation of Deficiency. The discretionary power of an authority to condone a deficiency in the pensionable period of service cannot be invoked by an individual who was discharged from service upon their own request.
More
Recent Posts
- Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL) Invites Applications For The Posts Of Legal Consultant
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court retired Chief Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar as the head of a committee to monitor drawal of lots to allot those shops.
- http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxb78Oa7ezNKaNpx43SZ44IikBbMRnf-Lk?si=X6OiU1XOkAOMF85U
- Case allowed THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.26105 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.29381 and 29384 of 2025 1.Union of India   Rep. by the Secretary   Government of India
- https://x.com/i/status/2014167479489106066 [22/01, 08:15] Sekarreporter: Service Law – Pensionary Benefits – Condonation of Deficiency. The discretionary power of an authority to condone a deficiency in the pensionable period of service cannot be invoked by an individual who was discharged from service upon their own request.