Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
The note addresses VCES eligibility where pre- and post-July 2012 liability arise from different legal questions: whether the appellant rendered an intellectual property service before July 2012 versus whether permitting Hallmarking/Assaying Centres to administer the BIS scheme for royalty constituted a 'service' after July 2012 under the post-July 2012 definition. It concludes that the issues are distinct, so the identical-issue proviso to the VCES does not bar acceptance of the later declaration; reliance on prior notices about intellectual property services did not preclude voluntary compliance for the separate charge based on the broader post-July 2012 service definition.
The note addresses VCES eligibility where pre- and post-July 2012 liability arise from different legal questions: whether the appellant rendered an intellectual property service before July 2012 versus whether permitting Hallmarking/Assaying Centres to administer the BIS scheme for royalty constituted a 'service' after July 2012 under the post-July 2012 definition. It concludes that the issues are distinct, so the identical-issue proviso to the VCES does not bar acceptance of the later declaration; reliance on prior notices about intellectual property services did not preclude voluntary compliance for the separate charge based on the broader post-July 2012 service definition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
