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...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7221 to 7240 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Declared value could be rejected where the proper officer had reason to doubt its truth or accuracy, and a forged consent letter provided a valid basis for rejection; valuation was then correctly made under the sequential rules using the value of similar Heavy Melting Scrap, and the challenge to valuation failed. A separate summons relating to a different customs broker regulations enquiry was irrelevant because it did not affect the valuation and weighment findings in the impugned orders. A proprietary concern has no separate legal existence from its proprietor, so an independent penalty on the concern could not stand once penalty had been imposed on the proprietor; the separate writ filed in the concern's name was therefore not maintainable.
Declared value could be rejected where the proper officer had reason to doubt its truth or accuracy, and a forged consent letter provided a valid basis for rejection; valuation was then correctly made under the sequential rules using the value of similar Heavy Melting Scrap, and the challenge to valuation failed. A separate summons relating to a different customs broker regulations enquiry was irrelevant because it did not affect the valuation and weighment findings in the impugned orders. A proprietary concern has no separate legal existence from its proprietor, so an independent penalty on the concern could not stand once penalty had been imposed on the proprietor; the separate writ filed in the concern's name was therefore not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.