Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Dispute concerns entitlement to customs duty exemption under Notification No.84/97-Cus where the department alleged wrongful availing based on forged Project Implementation Authorisation Certificate (PIAC), while the claimant contends absence of an assigned Line Ministry prevented lawful countersignature. The tribunal considered applicability of natural justice and the doctrine of prejudice, finding the appellant did not establish prejudice from prior opportunities but noting seriousness of fraud allegations. The matter is remitted for de novo adjudication: the original authority must allow filing of written submissions and afford a personal hearing before deciding entitlement to the exemption.
Dispute concerns entitlement to customs duty exemption under Notification No.84/97-Cus where the department alleged wrongful availing based on forged Project Implementation Authorisation Certificate (PIAC), while the claimant contends absence of an assigned Line Ministry prevented lawful countersignature. The tribunal considered applicability of natural justice and the doctrine of prejudice, finding the appellant did not establish prejudice from prior opportunities but noting seriousness of fraud allegations. The matter is remitted for de novo adjudication: the original authority must allow filing of written submissions and afford a personal hearing before deciding entitlement to the exemption.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
