Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
