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...
Valid country of origin certificates under the India-ASEAN PTA Rules, the India-Malaysia PTA Rules and the exemption notifications could not be ignored for preferential customs duty unless they were invalidated through the prescribed retroactive verification mechanism. CESTAT held that Customs was bound to act on the certificates as documentary proof of origin, and the Revenue's reliance on a later Madras High Court decision was distinguishable because that case involved serious discrepancies in the certificate itself. It also held that, for the relevant period, the importer had no mandatory obligation to prove how regional value content was satisfied; that requirement arose only after Section 28DA and the CAROTAR Rules. The denial of exemption, with demand, interest and penalty, was set aside.
Valid country of origin certificates under the India-ASEAN PTA Rules, the India-Malaysia PTA Rules and the exemption notifications could not be ignored for preferential customs duty unless they were invalidated through the prescribed retroactive verification mechanism. CESTAT held that Customs was bound to act on the certificates as documentary proof of origin, and the Revenue's reliance on a later Madras High Court decision was distinguishable because that case involved serious discrepancies in the certificate itself. It also held that, for the relevant period, the importer had no mandatory obligation to prove how regional value content was satisfied; that requirement arose only after Section 28DA and the CAROTAR Rules. The denial of exemption, with demand, interest and penalty, was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
