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...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case before CESTAT Bangalore involved a refund claim seeking the benefit of a Notification under the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. The issue was whether the benefit of the Notification, not claimed earlier, was available to the appellant upon later claim after duty payment. The Tribunal held that since the goods were imported from Sri Lanka and the appellant provided the country-of-origin certificate, the benefit of the Notification should not be denied solely for not claiming it at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. The claim for reassessment/refund was filed within the prescribed time limit as per relevant Circular. Citing the decision in Hero Cycles vs. UOI, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the benefit of the Notification and any consequential relief as per law.
The case before CESTAT Bangalore involved a refund claim seeking the benefit of a Notification under the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. The issue was whether the benefit of the Notification, not claimed earlier, was available to the appellant upon later claim after duty payment. The Tribunal held that since the goods were imported from Sri Lanka and the appellant provided the country-of-origin certificate, the benefit of the Notification should not be denied solely for not claiming it at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. The claim for reassessment/refund was filed within the prescribed time limit as per relevant Circular. Citing the decision in Hero Cycles vs. UOI, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the benefit of the Notification and any consequential relief as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
