Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Independent professional certification requires pleaded knowledge or complicity for criminal liability; untimely complaints remain barred by limitatio...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
