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...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
