Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
