CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
AT, in a profiteering matter concerning the period 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019, held that interest at 18% under Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules was not leviable since the investigation period did not substantially fall within the operative period of that provision. AT further held that no penalty was imposable as the statutory provisions enabling penalty came into force only in 2020, subsequent to the last date of the alleged profiteering. The concerned Commissioner was directed to submit a compliance report within four months, and the appeal was disposed of.
AT, in a profiteering matter concerning the period 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019, held that interest at 18% under Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules was not leviable since the investigation period did not substantially fall within the operative period of that provision. AT further held that no penalty was imposable as the statutory provisions enabling penalty came into force only in 2020, subsequent to the last date of the alleged profiteering. The concerned Commissioner was directed to submit a compliance report within four months, and the appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
