Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
