Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
In exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the HC dismissed the Department's appeal before CESTAT, finding the dispute clearly covered by the circular dated November 2, 2013, as the amount involved (Rs. 29,66,805 plus Rs. 20 lakhs) was below the Rs. 50 lakhs monetary limit. The Court determined that disregarding the Instruction would serve no useful purpose and would unnecessarily prolong the retention of the Petitioner's bank guarantee, which had been held for over 14 years. The HC ordered the release of the bank guarantee within 8 weeks, acknowledging that while the appeal predated the Instruction, the monetary limits would apply to pending matters.
In exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the HC dismissed the Department's appeal before CESTAT, finding the dispute clearly covered by the circular dated November 2, 2013, as the amount involved (Rs. 29,66,805 plus Rs. 20 lakhs) was below the Rs. 50 lakhs monetary limit. The Court determined that disregarding the Instruction would serve no useful purpose and would unnecessarily prolong the retention of the Petitioner's bank guarantee, which had been held for over 14 years. The HC ordered the release of the bank guarantee within 8 weeks, acknowledging that while the appeal predated the Instruction, the monetary limits would apply to pending matters.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
