Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Remission of duty - Application of Section 23 - duty free goods brought into SEZ and the same were destroyed in fire or otherwise - The Appellate Tribunal noted that there have been previous cases where goods destroyed in SEZs were found eligible for remission of duty under the Customs Act. Citing a specific case (ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. Vs. CC), the Tribunal highlighted that the responsibility for ensuring the safety of goods lies with the appellant, but negligence was not proven in this instance. Additionally, it was noted that the absence of customs inspection or analysis further supported the appellant's claim of lack of negligence. - The Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to remission of duty.
Remission of duty - Application of Section 23 - duty free goods brought into SEZ and the same were destroyed in fire or otherwise - The Appellate Tribunal noted that there have been previous cases where goods destroyed in SEZs were found eligible for remission of duty under the Customs Act. Citing a specific case (ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. Vs. CC), the Tribunal highlighted that the responsibility for ensuring the safety of goods lies with the appellant, but negligence was not proven in this instance. Additionally, it was noted that the absence of customs inspection or analysis further supported the appellant's claim of lack of negligence. - The Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to remission of duty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
