Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
