Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Refund of SAD - The case involved refund claims filed by the appellant under Customs Notification No.102/2007-Cus. for Special Additional Duty of Customs paid during the import of goods. While a part of the refund claim was sanctioned, the original authority rejected the claim for two Bills of Entry, citing discrepancies between invoice dates and dates of Bill of Entry. The appellant contended that the rejection was based on unfounded assumptions by the department, clarifying that goods were intended for delivery at Sivakasi and were transported directly from Chennai to Sivakasi. The Tribunal found the rejection erroneous, emphasizing that an importer can arrange for direct delivery to the customer from the port.
Refund of SAD - The case involved refund claims filed by the appellant under Customs Notification No.102/2007-Cus. for Special Additional Duty of Customs paid during the import of goods. While a part of the refund claim was sanctioned, the original authority rejected the claim for two Bills of Entry, citing discrepancies between invoice dates and dates of Bill of Entry. The appellant contended that the rejection was based on unfounded assumptions by the department, clarifying that goods were intended for delivery at Sivakasi and were transported directly from Chennai to Sivakasi. The Tribunal found the rejection erroneous, emphasizing that an importer can arrange for direct delivery to the customer from the port.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
