Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
The imported toll management system equipment qualified for exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. because the first appellant was duly appointed as a sub-contractor for the road project and condition No. 9(a) was sufficiently met; the Tribunal held that the original concession agreement need not name the sub-contractor if subsequent contracts and communications showed authorised engagement. Condition No. 9(b) was also not breached, as the Revenue misread the five-year sale or disposal restriction and the transfer of project equipment to the concessionaire after completion did not defeat the exemption. With exemption upheld, the duty demand, confiscation under Section 111(o), and penalties were set aside.
The imported toll management system equipment qualified for exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. because the first appellant was duly appointed as a sub-contractor for the road project and condition No. 9(a) was sufficiently met; the Tribunal held that the original concession agreement need not name the sub-contractor if subsequent contracts and communications showed authorised engagement. Condition No. 9(b) was also not breached, as the Revenue misread the five-year sale or disposal restriction and the transfer of project equipment to the concessionaire after completion did not defeat the exemption. With exemption upheld, the duty demand, confiscation under Section 111(o), and penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
