Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Commissioner's rejection of the appellant's requests for conversion of DFIA Shipping Bills to Drawback Shipping Bills, relying on Para 3(a) of the CBIC Circular No. 36/2010-Customs, was held to be incorrect. The Gujarat High Court had previously ruled that Para 3(a) of the said Circular was ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the Commissioner's rejection was solely based on the struck-down Para 3(a), the impugned order was held to be bad in law. Furthermore, under Para 4.28(e) of the Handbook of Procedures 2009-14, the appellant could apply for conversion after the DFIA licenses were cancelled, which they promptly did. No time limit was prescribed for seeking conversion. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to conversion of the Shipping Bills into drawback shipping bills. The CESTAT allowed the appeal.
The Commissioner's rejection of the appellant's requests for conversion of DFIA Shipping Bills to Drawback Shipping Bills, relying on Para 3(a) of the CBIC Circular No. 36/2010-Customs, was held to be incorrect. The Gujarat High Court had previously ruled that Para 3(a) of the said Circular was ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and ultra vires Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the Commissioner's rejection was solely based on the struck-down Para 3(a), the impugned order was held to be bad in law. Furthermore, under Para 4.28(e) of the Handbook of Procedures 2009-14, the appellant could apply for conversion after the DFIA licenses were cancelled, which they promptly did. No time limit was prescribed for seeking conversion. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to conversion of the Shipping Bills into drawback shipping bills. The CESTAT allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
