Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
CESTAT held that appellant was entitled to benefit under N/N. 94/96-Cus for imported goods that were initially exported and returned. While the adjudicating authority denied benefits claiming they cannot be granted post clearance, and Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this view, CESTAT found this contradicted earlier Commissioner(Appeals) direction to allow notification benefits. Without any higher forum modifying the previous direction, Assistant Commissioner was bound to grant benefits. Following Supreme Court precedent in Share Medical Care case, CESTAT ruled notification benefits were wrongly denied and allowed the appeal, directing reassessment of goods under N/N. 94/96-Cus.
CESTAT held that appellant was entitled to benefit under N/N. 94/96-Cus for imported goods that were initially exported and returned. While the adjudicating authority denied benefits claiming they cannot be granted post clearance, and Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this view, CESTAT found this contradicted earlier Commissioner(Appeals) direction to allow notification benefits. Without any higher forum modifying the previous direction, Assistant Commissioner was bound to grant benefits. Following Supreme Court precedent in Share Medical Care case, CESTAT ruled notification benefits were wrongly denied and allowed the appeal, directing reassessment of goods under N/N. 94/96-Cus.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
