Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the adjudicating and appellate orders and held that the imported stainless steel was not liable to confiscation nor to penalty under s.112(a) FA. The Tribunal found the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 had not come into force on the shipment date (27.01.2017), and therefore the obligation to affix the BIS mark did not attach to goods exported before the Order's commencement; subsequent filing of the bill of entry did not retrospectively impose that requirement. The Revenue's contention of the appellant's alleged prior knowledge was rejected as legally immaterial to liability.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the adjudicating and appellate orders and held that the imported stainless steel was not liable to confiscation nor to penalty under s.112(a) FA. The Tribunal found the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 had not come into force on the shipment date (27.01.2017), and therefore the obligation to affix the BIS mark did not attach to goods exported before the Order's commencement; subsequent filing of the bill of entry did not retrospectively impose that requirement. The Revenue's contention of the appellant's alleged prior knowledge was rejected as legally immaterial to liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
