Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
