Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Duty Drawback claim denied due to clarificatory Circular No.55/99-Cus retrospectively applicable. Petitioner's exported product, Woolen Readymade Garments, excluded from S.S.NO.62.09 covering only woollen Suits/Trousers/Blazers/Jackets as per Circular. Revisional Authority's order upheld, relying on Karnataka High Court decision in CCE Bangalore Vs. Central Manufacturing Technology Institute, clarifying retrospective nature of clarificatory notifications. Petitioner entitled only to Brand Rate, not Drawback claim for exported garments other than specified categories. Writ Petition dismissed.
Duty Drawback claim denied due to clarificatory Circular No.55/99-Cus retrospectively applicable. Petitioner's exported product, Woolen Readymade Garments, excluded from S.S.NO.62.09 covering only woollen Suits/Trousers/Blazers/Jackets as per Circular. Revisional Authority's order upheld, relying on Karnataka High Court decision in CCE Bangalore Vs. Central Manufacturing Technology Institute, clarifying retrospective nature of clarificatory notifications. Petitioner entitled only to Brand Rate, not Drawback claim for exported garments other than specified categories. Writ Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.