Transferable duty credit scrips validity and bona fide transferee entitlement to exemption upheld where scrips were subsisting at import, appeals allo...
Classification of knocked down motor vehicle component imports: Notification benefit denied because items are standalone non kit parts requiring subst...
Reassessment against a deceased assessee: procedural defect mandates fresh reassessment; nonresponsive petitioner may be treated as legal representati...
The dominant issue was whether revised compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 could be applied to compute compounding fee for an offence under s.279(2) on a compounding application filed on 05.03.2021 pursuant to prior judicial directions. The Explanation to s.279(6), though retrospective from 01.04.1962, only clarifies the Board's power to issue binding instructions and operates as a proviso making the Commissioner's power subject to then-applicable Board instructions; it does not authorise applying later guidelines to an already-pending compounding request, unless a fresh independent application is made under the new guidelines. Consequently, determination of compounding charges under the 17.10.2024 Guidelines was held unsustainable. - HC
The dominant issue was whether revised compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 could be applied to compute compounding fee for an offence under s.279(2) on a compounding application filed on 05.03.2021 pursuant to prior judicial directions. The Explanation to s.279(6), though retrospective from 01.04.1962, only clarifies the Board's power to issue binding instructions and operates as a proviso making the Commissioner's power subject to then-applicable Board instructions; it does not authorise applying later guidelines to an already-pending compounding request, unless a fresh independent application is made under the new guidelines. Consequently, determination of compounding charges under the 17.10.2024 Guidelines was held unsustainable. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.