Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
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 ...
Page of 4897
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
401 to 420 of 97923 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT held that the benefit of Notification No. 21/2016-CUS (ADD) dated 31.05.2016 is not to be provided to the appellant. The invocation of the extended period of limitation u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the consequent imposition of penalty u/s 114A of the Act were examined. The CESTAT found that the dispute related to bills of entry filed on 24.10.2016, 27.10.2016, and 31.01.2017, but the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2021. All the relevant information was available in the import invoice and bill of lading at the time of filing the bills of entry. There was no suppression of facts by the appellant. Therefore, the ingredients to invoke the extended period u/s 28(4) were not available. The demand for the bills of entry dated 24.10.2016, 27.10.2016, and 31.01.2017 was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued much after the normal period of limitation.
The CESTAT held that the benefit of Notification No. 21/2016-CUS (ADD) dated 31.05.2016 is not to be provided to the appellant. The invocation of the extended period of limitation u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the consequent imposition of penalty u/s 114A of the Act were examined. The CESTAT found that the dispute related to bills of entry filed on 24.10.2016, 27.10.2016, and 31.01.2017, but the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2021. All the relevant information was available in the import invoice and bill of lading at the time of filing the bills of entry. There was no suppression of facts by the appellant. Therefore, the ingredients to invoke the extended period u/s 28(4) were not available. The demand for the bills of entry dated 24.10.2016, 27.10.2016, and 31.01.2017 was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued much after the normal period of limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4897 
