Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 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 customs authorities could not deny the preferential rate of duty under N/N. 46/2011-Cus. solely on the basis of an FTA Cell letter alleging that the relevant Certificate of Origin was "inauthentic," without producing the underlying verification report. In absence of this primary document, the conclusion of inauthenticity was treated as hearsay and legally unsustainable. Further, earlier imports under six separate Bills of Entry, supported by different Certificates of Origin, could not be discredited merely by association with the disputed certificate, especially when their assessments had attained finality and were never challenged. Consequently, CESTAT set aside the confirmed demands, and the appeals filed by M/s. X were allowed in entirety.
CESTAT held that the customs authorities could not deny the preferential rate of duty under N/N. 46/2011-Cus. solely on the basis of an FTA Cell letter alleging that the relevant Certificate of Origin was "inauthentic," without producing the underlying verification report. In absence of this primary document, the conclusion of inauthenticity was treated as hearsay and legally unsustainable. Further, earlier imports under six separate Bills of Entry, supported by different Certificates of Origin, could not be discredited merely by association with the disputed certificate, especially when their assessments had attained finality and were never challenged. Consequently, CESTAT set aside the confirmed demands, and the appeals filed by M/s. X were allowed in entirety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
