Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Goods falling under sub-heading 16010000 were outside Notification No. 125/2011-Cus. because the annexure expressly excluded heading/sub-heading 160100, so the original exemption claim failed. The alternate claim under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. was also rejected because a conditional exemption required supporting documents, and new material could not be introduced for the first time in appeal without compliance with the procedure for additional evidence under Rule 23. The limitation objection was denied as the one-year period under Section 28 of the Customs Act ran from the end of the month of filing of the bill of entry, making the demand notice timely.
Goods falling under sub-heading 16010000 were outside Notification No. 125/2011-Cus. because the annexure expressly excluded heading/sub-heading 160100, so the original exemption claim failed. The alternate claim under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. was also rejected because a conditional exemption required supporting documents, and new material could not be introduced for the first time in appeal without compliance with the procedure for additional evidence under Rule 23. The limitation objection was denied as the one-year period under Section 28 of the Customs Act ran from the end of the month of filing of the bill of entry, making the demand notice timely.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
