Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 129A of the Customs Act does not create a Tribunal appeal where the underlying statute does not provide one. In the context of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, the Tribunal noted that those Regulations allow a representation to the Chief Commissioner against an order under regulation 13(1), but do not provide a further appeal against the order passed in such proceedings. It also accepted that such orders are not decisions under the Customs Act for section 129A purposes. The appeal against the Principal Chief Commissioner's order on forfeiture of security and penalty was therefore dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law.
Section 129A of the Customs Act does not create a Tribunal appeal where the underlying statute does not provide one. In the context of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, the Tribunal noted that those Regulations allow a representation to the Chief Commissioner against an order under regulation 13(1), but do not provide a further appeal against the order passed in such proceedings. It also accepted that such orders are not decisions under the Customs Act for section 129A purposes. The appeal against the Principal Chief Commissioner's order on forfeiture of security and penalty was therefore dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
