Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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 recovery of customs duty on inputs and packing materials procured duty-free by an Export Oriented Unit and subsequently destroyed per mandatory pharmaceutical protocols was impermissible. The adjudicating authority misconstrued the EOU scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and Notification 52/2003. The proper officer's satisfaction regarding non-compliance with Standard Input Output Norms was required before duty recovery. The Commissioner inappropriately invoked bond provisions without proper demand notice under Section 28 or justified appropriation of jurisdiction. The adjudicating authority exceeded jurisdiction by acting without establishing proper officer status under Section 142. No duty was recoverable on destroyed goods complying with pharmaceutical regulations and Foreign Trade Policy provisions. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that recovery of customs duty on inputs and packing materials procured duty-free by an Export Oriented Unit and subsequently destroyed per mandatory pharmaceutical protocols was impermissible. The adjudicating authority misconstrued the EOU scheme under Customs Act, 1962 and Notification 52/2003. The proper officer's satisfaction regarding non-compliance with Standard Input Output Norms was required before duty recovery. The Commissioner inappropriately invoked bond provisions without proper demand notice under Section 28 or justified appropriation of jurisdiction. The adjudicating authority exceeded jurisdiction by acting without establishing proper officer status under Section 142. No duty was recoverable on destroyed goods complying with pharmaceutical regulations and Foreign Trade Policy provisions. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
