Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Liability to pay interest upon finalization of provisional assessment prior to insertion of sub-section (3) in Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The CESTAT analyzed Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, which imposes interest liability on the importer or exporter upon final assessment order. However, this provision was inserted after the provisional assessment in question.The Tribunal cited legal principles stating that legislation is prospective unless expressly made retrospective. Previous cases and statutory interpretations affirmed this principle.It was concluded that the amendment to Section 18 was substantive and not clarificatory, thus lacking retrospective applicability.
Liability to pay interest upon finalization of provisional assessment prior to insertion of sub-section (3) in Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The CESTAT analyzed Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, which imposes interest liability on the importer or exporter upon final assessment order. However, this provision was inserted after the provisional assessment in question.The Tribunal cited legal principles stating that legislation is prospective unless expressly made retrospective. Previous cases and statutory interpretations affirmed this principle.It was concluded that the amendment to Section 18 was substantive and not clarificatory, thus lacking retrospective applicability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.