Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3261 to 3280 of 96177 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 para 3.16.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy bars SHIS only where the status holder has availed TUFS for exports made in the same year. The appellant had not claimed SHIS on the basis of its own exports; it was only a transferee holder of SHIS scrips originally issued to others, and it used those scrips later for duty payment on imported capital goods. The Tribunal also held that Notification No. 104/2009-Cus permitted drawback or Cenvat credit of additional duty debited in the scrip, and no bar applied to a transferee holder. The demand of wrongly availed Cenvat credit, interest and penalty was set aside.
CESTAT held that para 3.16.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy bars SHIS only where the status holder has availed TUFS for exports made in the same year. The appellant had not claimed SHIS on the basis of its own exports; it was only a transferee holder of SHIS scrips originally issued to others, and it used those scrips later for duty payment on imported capital goods. The Tribunal also held that Notification No. 104/2009-Cus permitted drawback or Cenvat credit of additional duty debited in the scrip, and no bar applied to a transferee holder. The demand of wrongly availed Cenvat credit, interest and penalty was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.