Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
CRCL Kandla test reports were treated as adequate to classify imported synthetic fabric, because the declared entry required 85% or more textured polyester filaments while the reports showed only 60% to 63.5%; the declared Bill of Entry classification was therefore rejected and classification under CTH 54078290 upheld. On valuation, the Tribunal held that reassessment after rejection of declared value must follow the Customs Valuation Rules using relied-upon comparable import data, with invoices and supporting documents disclosed to the importer before fresh determination; the issue was remanded for that purpose. On duty exemption, ambiguity in the Letter of Permission required clarification from the Development Commissioner on whether fresh fabrics were authorised, and duty liability was to be reconsidered only within the scope of the show cause notice; this issue was also remanded.
CRCL Kandla test reports were treated as adequate to classify imported synthetic fabric, because the declared entry required 85% or more textured polyester filaments while the reports showed only 60% to 63.5%; the declared Bill of Entry classification was therefore rejected and classification under CTH 54078290 upheld. On valuation, the Tribunal held that reassessment after rejection of declared value must follow the Customs Valuation Rules using relied-upon comparable import data, with invoices and supporting documents disclosed to the importer before fresh determination; the issue was remanded for that purpose. On duty exemption, ambiguity in the Letter of Permission required clarification from the Development Commissioner on whether fresh fabrics were authorised, and duty liability was to be reconsidered only within the scope of the show cause notice; this issue was also remanded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
