Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The High Court held that the appeals were maintainable as the show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority raised issues pertaining to mis-declaration of description and value addition to wrongly claim benefit under the replenishment scheme, applicability of Notification No. 57/2000-Customs and Circular No. 27/206-Customs, and the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20. The Court found no substantial questions of law arising for consideration, as the demand for duty on the quantum of gold received under the replenishment scheme was not disputed, and the findings of fact were properly appreciated based on the available record. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the appeals were maintainable as the show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority raised issues pertaining to mis-declaration of description and value addition to wrongly claim benefit under the replenishment scheme, applicability of Notification No. 57/2000-Customs and Circular No. 27/206-Customs, and the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20. The Court found no substantial questions of law arising for consideration, as the demand for duty on the quantum of gold received under the replenishment scheme was not disputed, and the findings of fact were properly appreciated based on the available record. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
