Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 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 4814 
Join Channel 
