Revisability of return invalidation communications under tax procedure affirmed, impugned non revisional finding quashed and matter remitted for fresh...
Transferable duty credit scrips validity and bona fide transferee entitlement to exemption upheld where scrips were subsisting at import, appeals allo...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6601 to 6620 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Denial of concessional duty under Notification No. 4/2006-CE on...
Imported cement concessional duty exemption under Notification 4/2006 challenged over RSP misdeclaration; demand, interest and s.114A penalty set aside.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Denial of concessional duty under Notification No. 4/2006-CE on imported cement was challenged on allegations of RSP misdeclaration, suppression, and consequent differential duty demand with interest and penalty under s.114A. Relying on a coordinate bench decision on identical imports, period, and exemption claim, the tribunal held the importer satisfied the notification conditions and was entitled to the exemption; consequently, the differential duty demand was untenable and set aside. On limitation, the tribunal found the extended period inapplicable on the facts, rendering the demand time-barred; interest and penalty could not survive. Appeal allowed with consequential relief. - CESTAT
Denial of concessional duty under Notification No. 4/2006-CE on imported cement was challenged on allegations of RSP misdeclaration, suppression, and consequent differential duty demand with interest and penalty under s.114A. Relying on a coordinate bench decision on identical imports, period, and exemption claim, the tribunal held the importer satisfied the notification conditions and was entitled to the exemption; consequently, the differential duty demand was untenable and set aside. On limitation, the tribunal found the extended period inapplicable on the facts, rendering the demand time-barred; interest and penalty could not survive. Appeal allowed with consequential relief. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
