Prohibited importation of cosmetics without prior regulatory registration attracts seizure and confiscation; warehousing or re export claims do not cu...
Provisional release on security permitted where cash deposit plus bond secures differential duty; classification and treaty benefits referred for deci...
Customs Valuation Rule Sequence must be followed; single-comparator re-determination and penalties set aside without comparability or proof of mis-dec...
Separately Identifiable Services: transportation found to be the essential character, so Cargo Handling classification and extended limitation rejecte...
The principal issue was whether the appellant's MM Plant qualified as a "new industrial unit" under the 1989 industrial policy rather than an expansion of an existing unit. Applying the policy's eligibility criteria for new units and noting the absence of cogent reasons to treat it as an expansion (including prior official classification as a new unit), the unit was held to be a new industrial unit, entitling it to incentives. The further issue was whether subsidies could be denied due to exhaustion of overall subsidy limits under earlier policies; this restriction was held applicable only to existing units seeking additional subsidy for expansion/modernisation/diversification, so rejection was unlawful. Based on clear representations and detrimental reliance, the State was held estopped from refusing disbursal; the HC order was set aside and subsidies directed. - SC
The principal issue was whether the appellant's MM Plant qualified as a "new industrial unit" under the 1989 industrial policy rather than an expansion of an existing unit. Applying the policy's eligibility criteria for new units and noting the absence of cogent reasons to treat it as an expansion (including prior official classification as a new unit), the unit was held to be a new industrial unit, entitling it to incentives. The further issue was whether subsidies could be denied due to exhaustion of overall subsidy limits under earlier policies; this restriction was held applicable only to existing units seeking additional subsidy for expansion/modernisation/diversification, so rejection was unlawful. Based on clear representations and detrimental reliance, the State was held estopped from refusing disbursal; the HC order was set aside and subsidies directed. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
