Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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 anonymized importer in full and set aside the impugned order-in-original. It held that N/N. 29/2010-Cus is an unconditional exemption from special additional duty, applicable solely on the basis of goods description, and the Dept. cannot read into it conditions not expressly stipulated, including alleged violations of the Legal Metrology Act. CESTAT held that the proper officer, while reassessing differential duty, is bound to extend available exemptions. Consequently, the demand of SAD, along with interest, penalty, confiscation, and redemption fine, was quashed. CESTAT further held that the extended period under the proviso to s.28 of the Customs Act was not invocable, as there was no deliberate misdeclaration or positive act to evade duty by the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the anonymized importer in full and set aside the impugned order-in-original. It held that N/N. 29/2010-Cus is an unconditional exemption from special additional duty, applicable solely on the basis of goods description, and the Dept. cannot read into it conditions not expressly stipulated, including alleged violations of the Legal Metrology Act. CESTAT held that the proper officer, while reassessing differential duty, is bound to extend available exemptions. Consequently, the demand of SAD, along with interest, penalty, confiscation, and redemption fine, was quashed. CESTAT further held that the extended period under the proviso to s.28 of the Customs Act was not invocable, as there was no deliberate misdeclaration or positive act to evade duty by the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
