Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4921 to 4940 of 96092 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 relevant date for determination of duty under Section 15(1)(a) was the date of filing of the bills of entry, because the bills were filed after entry inwards and were not advance bills of entry. Notification No. 21/2022-Cus. was therefore unavailable when duty liability crystallised, and the importer could not invoke a later exemption by choice. The proviso concerning bills of entry presented before entry inwards was inapplicable on the facts. The Tribunal also held that substitution under Section 46(5) was discretionary and could be refused where it would prejudice revenue; no arbitrariness was shown. The refusal to substitute the bills of entry into warehousing bills was upheld.
CESTAT held that the relevant date for determination of duty under Section 15(1)(a) was the date of filing of the bills of entry, because the bills were filed after entry inwards and were not advance bills of entry. Notification No. 21/2022-Cus. was therefore unavailable when duty liability crystallised, and the importer could not invoke a later exemption by choice. The proviso concerning bills of entry presented before entry inwards was inapplicable on the facts. The Tribunal also held that substitution under Section 46(5) was discretionary and could be refused where it would prejudice revenue; no arbitrariness was shown. The refusal to substitute the bills of entry into warehousing bills was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
