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...
The appellant filed a shipping bill and paid export duty on iron ore fines on 05.12.2008, before the issuance of Notification No. 129/2008-Cus dated 07.12.2008 granting exemption. As per Section 51 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Bombay HC judgment in Narayan Bandekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., the relevant date for duty determination is the date of order u/s 51, i.e., 05.12.2008. Since the notification came later, the appellant is not entitled to the exemption benefit. The CESTAT dismissed the appeal.
The appellant filed a shipping bill and paid export duty on iron ore fines on 05.12.2008, before the issuance of Notification No. 129/2008-Cus dated 07.12.2008 granting exemption. As per Section 51 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Bombay HC judgment in Narayan Bandekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., the relevant date for duty determination is the date of order u/s 51, i.e., 05.12.2008. Since the notification came later, the appellant is not entitled to the exemption benefit. The CESTAT dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
