Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
