Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Retrospective applicability of the amended Rule 89(5) governing refund of unutilised input tax credit on input services was treated as settled: the Court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in VKC Footsteps and the coordinate bench view in Ascent Meditech that Notification No. 14/2022 is retrospective, curative and clarificatory. As that legal position was undisputed, the deficiency memo rejecting the refund claim could not stand. The refund application was required to be processed under the amended formula and the law as declared.
Retrospective applicability of the amended Rule 89(5) governing refund of unutilised input tax credit on input services was treated as settled: the Court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in VKC Footsteps and the coordinate bench view in Ascent Meditech that Notification No. 14/2022 is retrospective, curative and clarificatory. As that legal position was undisputed, the deficiency memo rejecting the refund claim could not stand. The refund application was required to be processed under the amended formula and the law as declared.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.