Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
CESTAT dismissed the rectification of mistake application filed by the appellant. It held that the Final Order had correctly recorded and relied upon the Textile Committee's test report dated 30.08.2016 and additional report dated 21.09.2016, both pertaining to the same sample received on 08.07.2016 under DRI's letter dated 06.07.2016. The contention that the additional report was based on a second set of samples sent on 01.09.2016 was rejected as contrary to the record. The Tribunal further reiterated that HS classification is a quasi-judicial function of customs authorities, not experts. No mistake apparent on record was found.
CESTAT dismissed the rectification of mistake application filed by the appellant. It held that the Final Order had correctly recorded and relied upon the Textile Committee's test report dated 30.08.2016 and additional report dated 21.09.2016, both pertaining to the same sample received on 08.07.2016 under DRI's letter dated 06.07.2016. The contention that the additional report was based on a second set of samples sent on 01.09.2016 was rejected as contrary to the record. The Tribunal further reiterated that HS classification is a quasi-judicial function of customs authorities, not experts. No mistake apparent on record was found.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
