Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
