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...
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 4813 
Join Channel 
