Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Imported chilli seeds treated with poisonous chemicals and meant solely for sowing were held not to be "spices" under Chapter 09 because they were neither edible nor fit for human consumption; consequently, classification under CTI 0904 was rejected and the goods were held classifiable as seeds for sowing under CTI 1209 99 90, with Rule 3(a) of the GIR not permitting comparison at the eight-digit level. Invocation of the extended limitation period was disallowed as there was no finding of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and the bills of entry had been physically assessed, showing departmental awareness; the appellate reliance on a request under section 28(6) was also found unjustified in view of the subsequent withdrawal and contest of classification. Appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Imported chilli seeds treated with poisonous chemicals and meant solely for sowing were held not to be "spices" under Chapter 09 because they were neither edible nor fit for human consumption; consequently, classification under CTI 0904 was rejected and the goods were held classifiable as seeds for sowing under CTI 1209 99 90, with Rule 3(a) of the GIR not permitting comparison at the eight-digit level. Invocation of the extended limitation period was disallowed as there was no finding of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and the bills of entry had been physically assessed, showing departmental awareness; the appellate reliance on a request under section 28(6) was also found unjustified in view of the subsequent withdrawal and contest of classification. Appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.