Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1601 to 1620 of 96463 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.