Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that affixing MRP on imported electrical home appliances constituted 'manufacture' under Section 2(f)(iii), making it liable for excise duty. The appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on previously paid import duty. The tribunal rejected the extended period of limitation due to lack of willful suppression, restricting duty demand to normal period (03/2015-10/2016). While mandatory interest was upheld, penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 were set aside. Seizure and confiscation of goods were deemed unjustified. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for computing duty liability, interest, and CENVAT credit entitlement. The appeal was partially allowed through remand.
CESTAT held that affixing MRP on imported electrical home appliances constituted 'manufacture' under Section 2(f)(iii), making it liable for excise duty. The appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on previously paid import duty. The tribunal rejected the extended period of limitation due to lack of willful suppression, restricting duty demand to normal period (03/2015-10/2016). While mandatory interest was upheld, penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 were set aside. Seizure and confiscation of goods were deemed unjustified. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for computing duty liability, interest, and CENVAT credit entitlement. The appeal was partially allowed through remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
