Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
This case involves the rejection of an amendment u/s 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant sought to amend the bills of entry, citing the insertion of Explanation to Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules vide N/N.16/2020, which allowed the option to pay or not pay certain duties. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the amendment, stating that the appellant did not submit a DRI letter requesting consideration of appeals for willing importers. The CESTAT set aside the order and remanded the case, directing both parties to provide particulars of cases where similar amendments were allowed, to enable a consistent and uniform conclusion by the Adjudicating Authority. The key issues pertain to the admissibility of the amendment u/s 149, the applicability of the CGST Rules explanation, and the need for a uniform approach in similar cases.
This case involves the rejection of an amendment u/s 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant sought to amend the bills of entry, citing the insertion of Explanation to Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules vide N/N.16/2020, which allowed the option to pay or not pay certain duties. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the amendment, stating that the appellant did not submit a DRI letter requesting consideration of appeals for willing importers. The CESTAT set aside the order and remanded the case, directing both parties to provide particulars of cases where similar amendments were allowed, to enable a consistent and uniform conclusion by the Adjudicating Authority. The key issues pertain to the admissibility of the amendment u/s 149, the applicability of the CGST Rules explanation, and the need for a uniform approach in similar cases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
