Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95875 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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
