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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95955 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 appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal prematurely before the proper officer finalized the differential duties of customs for each bill of entry u/s 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The premature disposal by the Commissioner was incorrect, and the lack of jurisdiction infected the decision on merits, necessitating the invalidation of the order.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal prematurely before the proper officer finalized the differential duties of customs for each bill of entry u/s 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The premature disposal by the Commissioner was incorrect, and the lack of jurisdiction infected the decision on merits, necessitating the invalidation of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
