Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Extension of the limitation period under the first proviso to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the proceedings initiated in the Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2022 can be continued in light of the extension granted by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on 07.05.2024. It clarifies that the question of granting extensions under the first proviso arises only after the limitation period for passing an order determining duty or interest has expired. The senior officer can then extend the period by six months or one year, as specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 28(9). The second proviso deals with the abatement of proceedings if no orders are passed after the extension period. The clarification issued by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the amendment to Section 28(9) is deemed a non-application of mind. The appellant's argument about standing orders being guidelines is addressed, and the lack of a reply to the Show Cause Notice is mentioned. The rejection of the appellant's request for cross-examination by an officer without jurisdiction is highlighted, and the decision to file an appeal before the High Court is discussed. The summary also notes the expiry of the limitation for filing an appeal against the CESTAT Order and the failure to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Extension of the limitation period under the first proviso to Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the proceedings initiated in the Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2022 can be continued in light of the extension granted by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on 07.05.2024. It clarifies that the question of granting extensions under the first proviso arises only after the limitation period for passing an order determining duty or interest has expired. The senior officer can then extend the period by six months or one year, as specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 28(9). The second proviso deals with the abatement of proceedings if no orders are passed after the extension period. The clarification issued by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the amendment to Section 28(9) is deemed a non-application of mind. The appellant's argument about standing orders being guidelines is addressed, and the lack of a reply to the Show Cause Notice is mentioned. The rejection of the appellant's request for cross-examination by an officer without jurisdiction is highlighted, and the decision to file an appeal before the High Court is discussed. The summary also notes the expiry of the limitation for filing an appeal against the CESTAT Order and the failure to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4879 
