CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
The dominant issue was whether Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as amended) and the enhanced duty notification could lawfully operate to demand a higher customs duty from the relevant date. Relying on binding precedent holding Section 25(4) arbitrary and contrary to Section 25(1) and 25(2A), and noting consistent views declaring it illegal and unconstitutional, the court held that the enhanced duty demand premised on Section 25(4) could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned Bill of Entry was quashed and the authorities were directed to refund the excess duty with interest from the date of deposit until refund within three months. - HC
The dominant issue was whether Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as amended) and the enhanced duty notification could lawfully operate to demand a higher customs duty from the relevant date. Relying on binding precedent holding Section 25(4) arbitrary and contrary to Section 25(1) and 25(2A), and noting consistent views declaring it illegal and unconstitutional, the court held that the enhanced duty demand premised on Section 25(4) could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned Bill of Entry was quashed and the authorities were directed to refund the excess duty with interest from the date of deposit until refund within three months. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
