Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For imported capital goods of a 100% EOU, the controlling condition was installation or use within the bonded premises within the stipulated period; the NFEP-linked duty recovery provision applied to raw materials and consumables, not to capital goods. Since procurement and installation were undisputed, failure to achieve export obligation or NFEP did not by itself justify customs duty on the capital goods, and the duty demand was rightly set aside. The later notification dated 31.03.2003 was held inapplicable because the default period predated it and no retrospective effect was shown. As the duty demand failed, the penalty under Section 112(a) also could not survive.
For imported capital goods of a 100% EOU, the controlling condition was installation or use within the bonded premises within the stipulated period; the NFEP-linked duty recovery provision applied to raw materials and consumables, not to capital goods. Since procurement and installation were undisputed, failure to achieve export obligation or NFEP did not by itself justify customs duty on the capital goods, and the duty demand was rightly set aside. The later notification dated 31.03.2003 was held inapplicable because the default period predated it and no retrospective effect was shown. As the duty demand failed, the penalty under Section 112(a) also could not survive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.