New LODR Fifth Amendment reshapes related party transaction rules, disclosure duties, and non-convertible security communication timelines under Sched...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
8841 to 8860 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT upheld the competency of DRI officers to issue show cause notices in light of the statutory amendment and the SC decision in Canon India (Review), rejecting the appellant's jurisdictional challenge. However, on merits, CESTAT held that the Commissioner (Adjudication) acted beyond the show cause notice by introducing the "merchant exporter" issue at adjudication stage, which is impermissible. Relying on HC precedent in Galaxy Surfactants and CESTAT's decision in Tetrapack, the Tribunal held that a manufacturer-importer may send imported goods for job-work under N/N 30/97 and that non-obtaining of prior permission is only a procedural lapse, not warranting demand of duty. The appeal was allowed.
CESTAT upheld the competency of DRI officers to issue show cause notices in light of the statutory amendment and the SC decision in Canon India (Review), rejecting the appellant's jurisdictional challenge. However, on merits, CESTAT held that the Commissioner (Adjudication) acted beyond the show cause notice by introducing the "merchant exporter" issue at adjudication stage, which is impermissible. Relying on HC precedent in Galaxy Surfactants and CESTAT's decision in Tetrapack, the Tribunal held that a manufacturer-importer may send imported goods for job-work under N/N 30/97 and that non-obtaining of prior permission is only a procedural lapse, not warranting demand of duty. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.