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...
Levy and collection of Cost recovery charges - Validity Of Notification No.26/2009 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs - The appellants (CBEC) argued that the regulation was valid under Sections 141 and 157 of the Customs Act, 1962, and justified as administrative charges. However, the High Court found that the regulation lacked specific statutory authorization and amounted to an unauthorized tax, violating constitutional provisions. Therefore, the Court concluded that the regulation was ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962, and dismissed the appeal.
Levy and collection of Cost recovery charges - Validity Of Notification No.26/2009 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs - The appellants (CBEC) argued that the regulation was valid under Sections 141 and 157 of the Customs Act, 1962, and justified as administrative charges. However, the High Court found that the regulation lacked specific statutory authorization and amounted to an unauthorized tax, violating constitutional provisions. Therefore, the Court concluded that the regulation was ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962, and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
