Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
