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" ?
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.