Reopening assessments beyond four years requires nondisclosure of material facts; mere change of opinion or general allegations invalidates reassessme...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6001 to 6020 of 96207 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
