Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of additional customs duty under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, equivalent to rubber cess under section 12 of the Rubber Act on imported natural rubber, was upheld as legally sustainable. The Tribunal noted that competing decisions had been cited, but it followed the coordinate Bench ruling in the appellant's own case, which had recently rejected the same challenge for an earlier period by relying on the Larger Bench decision in TTK-LIG Ltd. In the absence of distinguishing facts and with no operative stay or interim order from the Supreme Court, the Tribunal declined to take a different view and sustained the demand; the appeal was dismissed.
Levy of additional customs duty under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, equivalent to rubber cess under section 12 of the Rubber Act on imported natural rubber, was upheld as legally sustainable. The Tribunal noted that competing decisions had been cited, but it followed the coordinate Bench ruling in the appellant's own case, which had recently rejected the same challenge for an earlier period by relying on the Larger Bench decision in TTK-LIG Ltd. In the absence of distinguishing facts and with no operative stay or interim order from the Supreme Court, the Tribunal declined to take a different view and sustained the demand; the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.