Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
