Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3381 to 3400 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding BIS marking requirements on imported Stainless Steel products. The shipment occurred on January 13, 2017, before the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 came into effect on February 7, 2017. As per Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, import date is considered as the shipment date. The tribunal rejected the argument that prior knowledge of upcoming regulations created an obligation to affix BIS marks. Following precedent from Metro Bright Bar India case, CESTAT held that since shipment predated the Quality Control Order's implementation, BIS marking was not required. The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding BIS marking requirements on imported Stainless Steel products. The shipment occurred on January 13, 2017, before the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 came into effect on February 7, 2017. As per Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, import date is considered as the shipment date. The tribunal rejected the argument that prior knowledge of upcoming regulations created an obligation to affix BIS marks. Following precedent from Metro Bright Bar India case, CESTAT held that since shipment predated the Quality Control Order's implementation, BIS marking was not required. The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
