Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
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...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
