Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
CESTAT held that the appeal by the appellant against the designated authority's final findings dated 29.09.2022 and the consequential notification dated 27.12.2022 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on semi-finished ophthalmic lenses from China PR is maintainable. The court found section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 (which purportedly amended ss. 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act) has not come into force because no notification under s. 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act has been issued; accordingly, the pre-existing jurisdiction under s. 9C of the Customs Tariff Act remains effective. The appeal is admitted and listed for hearing on 23.09.2025.
CESTAT held that the appeal by the appellant against the designated authority's final findings dated 29.09.2022 and the consequential notification dated 27.12.2022 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on semi-finished ophthalmic lenses from China PR is maintainable. The court found section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 (which purportedly amended ss. 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act) has not come into force because no notification under s. 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act has been issued; accordingly, the pre-existing jurisdiction under s. 9C of the Customs Tariff Act remains effective. The appeal is admitted and listed for hearing on 23.09.2025.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
