Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issues were (i) whether extended limitation and penal consequences for alleged misclassification were sustainable, and (ii) whether the adjudicating authority had jurisdiction to confirm demands for imports assessed outside its territorial jurisdiction. As Revenue produced no evidence contradicting import documents or past accepted practice, mala fides were not established; hence invocation of the extended period under s.28(4) was held untenable, disabling demands beyond the normal period and undermining confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. Further, absent empowerment as a common adjudicating authority, confirmation of demands for out-of-jurisdiction imports was held null and void ab initio and set aside. Reclassification and differential duty (with interest) were upheld only for door locks for the normal period and within jurisdiction; the remainder was quashed. - CESTAT
The dominant issues were (i) whether extended limitation and penal consequences for alleged misclassification were sustainable, and (ii) whether the adjudicating authority had jurisdiction to confirm demands for imports assessed outside its territorial jurisdiction. As Revenue produced no evidence contradicting import documents or past accepted practice, mala fides were not established; hence invocation of the extended period under s.28(4) was held untenable, disabling demands beyond the normal period and undermining confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. Further, absent empowerment as a common adjudicating authority, confirmation of demands for out-of-jurisdiction imports was held null and void ab initio and set aside. Reclassification and differential duty (with interest) were upheld only for door locks for the normal period and within jurisdiction; the remainder was quashed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
