Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Consistent classification of MAMA zarda as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10 defeated a later attempt to treat it as zarda scented tobacco, because both the assessee and the department had treated it under the same tariff entry from 2012 to 2016; the duty demand, differential duty, interest and connected penalty were set aside. Rule 26 penalties also failed because liability to confiscation is a necessary precondition, and the order contained no actual finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. The separate penalties on the noticees were therefore quashed.
Consistent classification of MAMA zarda as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10 defeated a later attempt to treat it as zarda scented tobacco, because both the assessee and the department had treated it under the same tariff entry from 2012 to 2016; the duty demand, differential duty, interest and connected penalty were set aside. Rule 26 penalties also failed because liability to confiscation is a necessary precondition, and the order contained no actual finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. The separate penalties on the noticees were therefore quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
