Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Worked mica in the two live consignments was correctly classified under tariff item 68149090 because the test reports and physical examination showed processed mica beyond crude mica or mere rifting, and the differential duty on those consignments was upheld. Test reports from those consignments could not be extrapolated to past consignments without samples or evidence for each Bill of Entry, so the demand on the past 72 consignments was unsustainable. The dispute was held to be one of classification, with no suppression, willful misstatement or collusion shown, so extended limitation under Section 28(4) could not be invoked. As there was no material misdeclaration or false document, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 111(m), 112, 114A and 114AA were set aside.
Worked mica in the two live consignments was correctly classified under tariff item 68149090 because the test reports and physical examination showed processed mica beyond crude mica or mere rifting, and the differential duty on those consignments was upheld. Test reports from those consignments could not be extrapolated to past consignments without samples or evidence for each Bill of Entry, so the demand on the past 72 consignments was unsustainable. The dispute was held to be one of classification, with no suppression, willful misstatement or collusion shown, so extended limitation under Section 28(4) could not be invoked. As there was no material misdeclaration or false document, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 111(m), 112, 114A and 114AA were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
