Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 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 
