Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court quashed the show cause notices and the impugned order, holding that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act. The Court observed that there were no allegations of willful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts by the petitioner. The respondents failed to establish any suppression of material facts before issuing the show cause notices. The petitioner had submitted all relevant documents during the inquiry, and the inability to reconcile LNG quantities in the Bills of Entry with regasified natural gas supplied through pipelines was due to technical reasons. Consequently, the extended period of limitation u/s 28(4) could not be invoked, vitiating the entire proceedings pursuant to the show cause notices.
The High Court quashed the show cause notices and the impugned order, holding that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act. The Court observed that there were no allegations of willful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts by the petitioner. The respondents failed to establish any suppression of material facts before issuing the show cause notices. The petitioner had submitted all relevant documents during the inquiry, and the inability to reconcile LNG quantities in the Bills of Entry with regasified natural gas supplied through pipelines was due to technical reasons. Consequently, the extended period of limitation u/s 28(4) could not be invoked, vitiating the entire proceedings pursuant to the show cause notices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
