Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 97755 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allows the appeal, sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found the impugned conditions and the reversal of the amendment unsustainable insofar as they rest on an undetermined premise whether the relevant bill of lading was "non-negotiable" and whether a no-objection or deemed-warehousing permission under ss. 47-49 and s.30 of the Customs Act was required or granted. The first appellate authority erred in deferring duty payment and regularizing retention without record of statutory permission and without first determining its competence and the nature of the bill of lading; those issues are to be decided afresh.
CESTAT allows the appeal, sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found the impugned conditions and the reversal of the amendment unsustainable insofar as they rest on an undetermined premise whether the relevant bill of lading was "non-negotiable" and whether a no-objection or deemed-warehousing permission under ss. 47-49 and s.30 of the Customs Act was required or granted. The first appellate authority erred in deferring duty payment and regularizing retention without record of statutory permission and without first determining its competence and the nature of the bill of lading; those issues are to be decided afresh.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.