Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
