Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
The petitioner was directed to pay a 5% penalty of the prevailing plot cost for the belated implementation of the project as per Clause 2.1.2.(a) of O.O.No.30 of 2020. However, the petitioner complied with the clause by utilizing more than 65% of the plot and had commenced production before dispatching goods. Despite paying the penalty amount, the petitioner was again directed to pay a 5% penalty. The Court found infirmity and illegality in the impugned order and quashed it, allowing the petition, as the petitioner had already paid the penalty and commenced production before dispatching goods, complying with all conditions.
The petitioner was directed to pay a 5% penalty of the prevailing plot cost for the belated implementation of the project as per Clause 2.1.2.(a) of O.O.No.30 of 2020. However, the petitioner complied with the clause by utilizing more than 65% of the plot and had commenced production before dispatching goods. Despite paying the penalty amount, the petitioner was again directed to pay a 5% penalty. The Court found infirmity and illegality in the impugned order and quashed it, allowing the petition, as the petitioner had already paid the penalty and commenced production before dispatching goods, complying with all conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
