Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
