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...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 29173920 and thus eligible for the concessional duty under Notification No. 152/2009-CUS; the departmental demand for differential customs duty of Rs. 56,71,510 with interest was held unsustainable. The Tribunal found no proven mis-declaration of goods and accordingly quashed the penalties levied on the Appellant. It held that post-Budget classification under the revised tariff entry did not deprive the Appellant of the notification benefit where identical goods were imported from the same supplier before and after the Budget, and ordered relief in favour of the Appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 29173920 and thus eligible for the concessional duty under Notification No. 152/2009-CUS; the departmental demand for differential customs duty of Rs. 56,71,510 with interest was held unsustainable. The Tribunal found no proven mis-declaration of goods and accordingly quashed the penalties levied on the Appellant. It held that post-Budget classification under the revised tariff entry did not deprive the Appellant of the notification benefit where identical goods were imported from the same supplier before and after the Budget, and ordered relief in favour of the Appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
