Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The adhoc exemption order did not restrict the use of floodlights solely for World Cup matches; it aimed to uplift the stadium's infrastructure standards. The department erroneously assumed that World Cup matches were non-commercial, while one-day internationals were commercial. The exemption order made no such distinction. The show cause notice lacked factual or legal basis for alleging a violation of condition (ii). Regarding time limitation, the notice did not allege suppression of facts or intention to evade customs duty. The department issued the notice after collecting documents from the appellant, indicating no suppression. With a lapse of over 7 years, the demand was time-barred as the proviso to Section 28(1) was not applicable. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The adhoc exemption order did not restrict the use of floodlights solely for World Cup matches; it aimed to uplift the stadium's infrastructure standards. The department erroneously assumed that World Cup matches were non-commercial, while one-day internationals were commercial. The exemption order made no such distinction. The show cause notice lacked factual or legal basis for alleging a violation of condition (ii). Regarding time limitation, the notice did not allege suppression of facts or intention to evade customs duty. The department issued the notice after collecting documents from the appellant, indicating no suppression. With a lapse of over 7 years, the demand was time-barred as the proviso to Section 28(1) was not applicable. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
