Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
