Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Gross violation of CBEC instructions and the precedential value of CESTAT decisions. The Revenue filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority without specifying grounds or reasons for departing from the Tribunal's order followed by the Adjudicating Authority. Section 35R(4) is applicable only to the Commissioner (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal, requiring them to consider circumstances under which an earlier order was accepted and not challenged. This section does not set aside the principle of judicial precedents and the binding nature of higher Appellate Authority orders. Authorities below the Tribunal are bound by its earlier orders. The impugned order set aside the original authority's order solely because the Tribunal's order was accepted due to monetary limits, without stating grounds contrary to the Tribunal's observations. The original authority kept demand notices awaiting the Tribunal's decision and adjudicated accordingly after it set aside the order. The impugned order lacked merits for differing from the available higher Appellate Authority order without specifying grounds, leading to the appeal being allowed.
Gross violation of CBEC instructions and the precedential value of CESTAT decisions. The Revenue filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority without specifying grounds or reasons for departing from the Tribunal's order followed by the Adjudicating Authority. Section 35R(4) is applicable only to the Commissioner (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal, requiring them to consider circumstances under which an earlier order was accepted and not challenged. This section does not set aside the principle of judicial precedents and the binding nature of higher Appellate Authority orders. Authorities below the Tribunal are bound by its earlier orders. The impugned order set aside the original authority's order solely because the Tribunal's order was accepted due to monetary limits, without stating grounds contrary to the Tribunal's observations. The original authority kept demand notices awaiting the Tribunal's decision and adjudicated accordingly after it set aside the order. The impugned order lacked merits for differing from the available higher Appellate Authority order without specifying grounds, leading to the appeal being allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.