Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A customs exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus, entry 13S, could not be denied merely because the importer did not follow the IGCR procedural requirements or furnish the prescribed undertaking, where the record showed the goods were only traded and not used in manufacture of excluded products. The Tribunal treated the exemption condition as aimed at preventing such manufacture and held that its substantive purpose was satisfied on the facts, so denial of exemption was unsustainable. It also rejected the objection that the adjudicating authority had travelled beyond the show cause notice, since the condition was reproduced there and the importer had put the exemption entry in issue. The duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside.
A customs exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus, entry 13S, could not be denied merely because the importer did not follow the IGCR procedural requirements or furnish the prescribed undertaking, where the record showed the goods were only traded and not used in manufacture of excluded products. The Tribunal treated the exemption condition as aimed at preventing such manufacture and held that its substantive purpose was satisfied on the facts, so denial of exemption was unsustainable. It also rejected the objection that the adjudicating authority had travelled beyond the show cause notice, since the condition was reproduced there and the importer had put the exemption entry in issue. The duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
