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...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Extended limitation for a customs demand was not available where the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the dispute concerned a technical claim for notification benefit; mere claim of misclassification or benefit under the notification did not amount to suppression or wilful misstatement when the imports as CKD condition were disclosed in the Bills of Entry and invoices. Differential duty could not be recovered by reopening self-assessed Bills of Entry without first challenging that assessment. Redemption fine also failed because the goods had already been cleared and were not available for confiscation. With the principal demand unsustainable, interest and penalty were likewise set aside.
Extended limitation for a customs demand was not available where the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the dispute concerned a technical claim for notification benefit; mere claim of misclassification or benefit under the notification did not amount to suppression or wilful misstatement when the imports as CKD condition were disclosed in the Bills of Entry and invoices. Differential duty could not be recovered by reopening self-assessed Bills of Entry without first challenging that assessment. Redemption fine also failed because the goods had already been cleared and were not available for confiscation. With the principal demand unsustainable, interest and penalty were likewise set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.