Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeals by remanding the matter back to the original authority. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer's insistence on the importer conforming to the classification proposed by the investigating agency was inappropriate and contrary to the self-assessment procedure u/ss 17, 36, and 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal observed that enforced conformity was evident from the immediate challenge to the assessment by the importer. The Tribunal found the lack of a 'speaking order' as required u/s 17(5) of the Act vitiated the impugned orders with illegality. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the bills of entry to the original authority for compliance with the statutory procedure, particularly Section 17(5).
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeals by remanding the matter back to the original authority. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer's insistence on the importer conforming to the classification proposed by the investigating agency was inappropriate and contrary to the self-assessment procedure u/ss 17, 36, and 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal observed that enforced conformity was evident from the immediate challenge to the assessment by the importer. The Tribunal found the lack of a 'speaking order' as required u/s 17(5) of the Act vitiated the impugned orders with illegality. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the bills of entry to the original authority for compliance with the statutory procedure, particularly Section 17(5).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
