Income Disclosure Scheme immunity and search-material requirements barred further share-transaction additions in unabated assessments under section 15...
Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
201 to 220 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal examined the issue of availment of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 68/2012-Cus. dated 31.12.2012 for import of whole arecanut originally from Pakistan. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the respondent failed to fulfill the criteria u/r 8 for concessional rate, but allowed the benefit on grounds of non-adherence to procedure for challenging the certificate of origin by the Ministry of Commerce. The Tribunal found that the procedure followed by Revenue was not an issue before the Commissioner (Appeals), who travelled beyond the scope of the order under challenge. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order as bad in law, as the respondent did not challenge the Revenue's authority nor was it an issue during assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal examined the issue of availment of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 68/2012-Cus. dated 31.12.2012 for import of whole arecanut originally from Pakistan. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the respondent failed to fulfill the criteria u/r 8 for concessional rate, but allowed the benefit on grounds of non-adherence to procedure for challenging the certificate of origin by the Ministry of Commerce. The Tribunal found that the procedure followed by Revenue was not an issue before the Commissioner (Appeals), who travelled beyond the scope of the order under challenge. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order as bad in law, as the respondent did not challenge the Revenue's authority nor was it an issue during assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
