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 ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was neither the importer nor the owner of the imported car in question under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 respectively. The original importer remained the legal owner as the vehicle was not registered in the appellant's name. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings against the appellant by issuing a show cause notice, seizing, and confiscating the vehicle was unlawful. The Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgments, show cause notices, and other proceedings against the appellant, and restored the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was neither the importer nor the owner of the imported car in question under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 respectively. The original importer remained the legal owner as the vehicle was not registered in the appellant's name. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings against the appellant by issuing a show cause notice, seizing, and confiscating the vehicle was unlawful. The Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgments, show cause notices, and other proceedings against the appellant, and restored the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
