Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The order dismissing the appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit amount u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged. The court relied on a previous judgment where it was held that there was no intent to avoid payment of the pre-deposit, and the Revenue Board had provided a facility for making such pre-deposits. Consequently, the court quashed the appellate order and revived the appeal, subject to the petitioner depositing the pre-deposit amount within two weeks, as per their undertaking.
The order dismissing the appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit amount u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged. The court relied on a previous judgment where it was held that there was no intent to avoid payment of the pre-deposit, and the Revenue Board had provided a facility for making such pre-deposits. Consequently, the court quashed the appellate order and revived the appeal, subject to the petitioner depositing the pre-deposit amount within two weeks, as per their undertaking.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
