Deferred Payment of Customs Duty extended to Eligible Manufacturer Importers with electronic registration and ICEGATE authentication for conditional c...
Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
The dominant issue was whether an import licence condition stating that import of gold dore bars was "subject to" a 2012 customs notification barred availment of a separate 2008 exemption notification. The tribunal held that the licence did not expressly prohibit other applicable exemptions; therefore, if an exemption notification fully exempted duty, the importer could lawfully claim it notwithstanding the licence reference to the 2012 notification, and the Commissioner's "if and only if" reading was unsustainable. It further held that customs could not question the validity of a DGFT-issued licence unless it was cancelled by DGFT, and hence duty demand under s.28(1), penalty under s.112(a)(ii), and redemption fine could not survive; the order was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether an import licence condition stating that import of gold dore bars was "subject to" a 2012 customs notification barred availment of a separate 2008 exemption notification. The tribunal held that the licence did not expressly prohibit other applicable exemptions; therefore, if an exemption notification fully exempted duty, the importer could lawfully claim it notwithstanding the licence reference to the 2012 notification, and the Commissioner's "if and only if" reading was unsustainable. It further held that customs could not question the validity of a DGFT-issued licence unless it was cancelled by DGFT, and hence duty demand under s.28(1), penalty under s.112(a)(ii), and redemption fine could not survive; the order was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
