Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Independent professional certification requires pleaded knowledge or complicity for criminal liability; untimely complaints remain barred by limitatio...
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.