Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
