Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
CESTAT held that the imported animal feed supplement (Nutracor 88) was correctly classified under CTH 23099090, invalidating the appellant's original classification. The tribunal rejected the revenue's attempt to invoke extended limitation period, finding no suppression of facts or intentional mis-declaration. The court set aside the demands raised under extended limitation, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The appellant was required to pay differential duty for the normal limitation period without additional penalties, effectively partially allowing the appeal while maintaining the revised tariff classification.
CESTAT held that the imported animal feed supplement (Nutracor 88) was correctly classified under CTH 23099090, invalidating the appellant's original classification. The tribunal rejected the revenue's attempt to invoke extended limitation period, finding no suppression of facts or intentional mis-declaration. The court set aside the demands raised under extended limitation, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The appellant was required to pay differential duty for the normal limitation period without additional penalties, effectively partially allowing the appeal while maintaining the revised tariff classification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.