Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Cenvat credit - Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules 2001/2002 - it is found that on 07.12.2005, the Appellant had received the rejected quantity of 577.11 MT at 23.45 hrs whereas the same was shown to have been cleared on the same day at 20.55 hrs. This leads to support the case of the Revenue and the Appellant could not rebut the charges of non-receipt by adducing sufficient evidences. - AT
Cenvat credit - Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules 2001/2002 - it is found that on 07.12.2005, the Appellant had received the rejected quantity of 577.11 MT at 23.45 hrs whereas the same was shown to have been cleared on the same day at 20.55 hrs. This leads to support the case of the Revenue and the Appellant could not rebut the charges of non-receipt by adducing sufficient evidences. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.