Central Government rescinds 2017 notification creating 4.05-hectare SEZ at Ameenpur after developer de-notification request; state no-objection confir...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10901 to 10920 of 96556 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 the impugned Commissioner (Appeals) order permitting depreciation on capital goods only until the date of payment of duty, instead of until the date of de-bonding/cessation of 100% EOU status, was unlawful. The Tribunal interpreted the notifications as permitting calculation of customs duty on depreciated value with reference to exchange rate at bill of entry and duty rate prevailing when the undertaking ceases to be an EOU, and that the specific provision allowing depreciation until payment applies only where clearance is authorized under Development Commissioner permission in normal debonding. The Commissioner (Appeals) order is set aside; the appeal is allowed and remanded to the adjudicating authority solely for recalculation of duty accordingly.
CESTAT held that the impugned Commissioner (Appeals) order permitting depreciation on capital goods only until the date of payment of duty, instead of until the date of de-bonding/cessation of 100% EOU status, was unlawful. The Tribunal interpreted the notifications as permitting calculation of customs duty on depreciated value with reference to exchange rate at bill of entry and duty rate prevailing when the undertaking ceases to be an EOU, and that the specific provision allowing depreciation until payment applies only where clearance is authorized under Development Commissioner permission in normal debonding. The Commissioner (Appeals) order is set aside; the appeal is allowed and remanded to the adjudicating authority solely for recalculation of duty accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
