Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The HC ruled in favor of the importer regarding classification disputes of fish protein obtained from decalcified fish scales under advance authorization. The court held that mis-description of imported inputs under advance authorization does not affect duty liability when DGFT authorities raised no breach concerns. The assessee imported identical products for years, described as "fish protein" (2012-2016) then "decalcified fish scale" (9 subsequent bills), with Revenue acknowledging no material difference. Since the Tribunal previously set aside differential duty demands for 42 earlier bills involving the same product, demanding differential duty for only 9 later transactions lacked justification. The imports qualified for nil duty under notification provisions applicable to advance authorization schemes. Without licensing authority objection or authorization cancellation, the Department cannot deny notification benefits. Appeal allowed.
The HC ruled in favor of the importer regarding classification disputes of fish protein obtained from decalcified fish scales under advance authorization. The court held that mis-description of imported inputs under advance authorization does not affect duty liability when DGFT authorities raised no breach concerns. The assessee imported identical products for years, described as "fish protein" (2012-2016) then "decalcified fish scale" (9 subsequent bills), with Revenue acknowledging no material difference. Since the Tribunal previously set aside differential duty demands for 42 earlier bills involving the same product, demanding differential duty for only 9 later transactions lacked justification. The imports qualified for nil duty under notification provisions applicable to advance authorization schemes. Without licensing authority objection or authorization cancellation, the Department cannot deny notification benefits. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
