Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned O-in-O and Commissioner (Appeals) orders, and directed grant of refund of SAD by holding the appellant entitled to benefit of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007. The Tribunal found that sale of timber after cutting/sawing does not defeat the notification where import was for subsequent sale, that timber is sold by quantity (CBM) not by piece count, and discrepancies between bill of entry and sales invoices do not justify denial of refund absent proof of diversion. The penalty imposed on the individual authorised signatory was quashed as unsustainable in view of entitlement to the claimed refund.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned O-in-O and Commissioner (Appeals) orders, and directed grant of refund of SAD by holding the appellant entitled to benefit of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007. The Tribunal found that sale of timber after cutting/sawing does not defeat the notification where import was for subsequent sale, that timber is sold by quantity (CBM) not by piece count, and discrepancies between bill of entry and sales invoices do not justify denial of refund absent proof of diversion. The penalty imposed on the individual authorised signatory was quashed as unsustainable in view of entitlement to the claimed refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
