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" ?
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 4916 
