PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the two imported tugboats are classifiable under Chapter Heading 89.04 and constitute ships/boats, not "machinery, equipment or tools," thereby denying the appellant benefit of Notification No.72/2017-Cus. The Tribunal sustained invocation of the extended period of limitation. It directed the AA to compute the differential duty after allowing any allowable drawback, adjust duties already paid when calculating interest, and impose a penalty under s.114A equal to the differential duty (redemption fine and exact quantum to be determined by the AA). The penalty under s.114AA was set aside. The technical administrator was held liable to penalty under s.112(a)(ii) for filing bills of entry claiming the ineligible exemption. Appeal allowed in part; remitted for consequential computation.
CESTAT held that the two imported tugboats are classifiable under Chapter Heading 89.04 and constitute ships/boats, not "machinery, equipment or tools," thereby denying the appellant benefit of Notification No.72/2017-Cus. The Tribunal sustained invocation of the extended period of limitation. It directed the AA to compute the differential duty after allowing any allowable drawback, adjust duties already paid when calculating interest, and impose a penalty under s.114A equal to the differential duty (redemption fine and exact quantum to be determined by the AA). The penalty under s.114AA was set aside. The technical administrator was held liable to penalty under s.112(a)(ii) for filing bills of entry claiming the ineligible exemption. Appeal allowed in part; remitted for consequential computation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.