Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the concessional basic customs duty under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. was available for the imported Cisco Catalyst 3850 Series Ethernet Switches because the denial rested on an earlier order that had already been set aside in a precedent on identical goods, later upheld by the Bombay High Court; the concession was therefore allowed for the three Bills of Entry actually covered by the appellate order. On maintainability, the Tribunal held that an appeal lies under Section 129A(1) only against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A, and payment of duty under protest does not itself create an appealable order. As no appellate order existed for the remaining thirty-eight Bills of Entry, those appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
CESTAT held that the concessional basic customs duty under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. was available for the imported Cisco Catalyst 3850 Series Ethernet Switches because the denial rested on an earlier order that had already been set aside in a precedent on identical goods, later upheld by the Bombay High Court; the concession was therefore allowed for the three Bills of Entry actually covered by the appellate order. On maintainability, the Tribunal held that an appeal lies under Section 129A(1) only against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A, and payment of duty under protest does not itself create an appealable order. As no appellate order existed for the remaining thirty-eight Bills of Entry, those appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.