Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
