Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the 100% EOU, holding that the benefit of N/N. 52/2003-Cus applies to inputs used in manufacture even where wastage exceeds SION norms, provided the inputs are actually used in the production process and waste/scrap is duly cleared on payment of duty and not removed unauthorisedly. Relying on the interpretation of the non-obstante clause in the notification, the Tribunal rejected the Department's view that excess wastage automatically attracted duty or penalty. It held that the Commissioner and the adjudicating authority had erred in demanding customs duty of Rs. 34,555/-, imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/-. All such demands and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was fully allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the 100% EOU, holding that the benefit of N/N. 52/2003-Cus applies to inputs used in manufacture even where wastage exceeds SION norms, provided the inputs are actually used in the production process and waste/scrap is duly cleared on payment of duty and not removed unauthorisedly. Relying on the interpretation of the non-obstante clause in the notification, the Tribunal rejected the Department's view that excess wastage automatically attracted duty or penalty. It held that the Commissioner and the adjudicating authority had erred in demanding customs duty of Rs. 34,555/-, imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/-. All such demands and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was fully allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
