Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reverse Charge (RCM) - Commissions paid to a foreign service provider - benefit of exemption under notification no. 18/2009-ST - non-discloser of detailed in the Shipping Bill - The CESTAT noted that the appellant's compliance with the procedural aspects of the notification, albeit delayed, was recognized. - The appellant successfully argued for the benefit of an exemption notification, although initially failing to meet some procedural requirements. The Tribunal's decision pivoted on the finding that there was no deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant, which is a necessary condition for extending the limitation period for tax demands.
Reverse Charge (RCM) - Commissions paid to a foreign service provider - benefit of exemption under notification no. 18/2009-ST - non-discloser of detailed in the Shipping Bill - The CESTAT noted that the appellant's compliance with the procedural aspects of the notification, albeit delayed, was recognized. - The appellant successfully argued for the benefit of an exemption notification, although initially failing to meet some procedural requirements. The Tribunal's decision pivoted on the finding that there was no deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant, which is a necessary condition for extending the limitation period for tax demands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
