Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
