Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
CESTAT reiterated that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the department already knew of the exports and MEIS benefit claims from an earlier show cause notice on the same products and period; suppression and wilful misstatement were therefore not made out. It also held that customs could not deny or recover MEIS benefits while the scrips remained uncancelled, since DGFT had not completed cancellation proceedings. On both limitation and merits, the impugned demand and recovery action were unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
CESTAT reiterated that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the department already knew of the exports and MEIS benefit claims from an earlier show cause notice on the same products and period; suppression and wilful misstatement were therefore not made out. It also held that customs could not deny or recover MEIS benefits while the scrips remained uncancelled, since DGFT had not completed cancellation proceedings. On both limitation and merits, the impugned demand and recovery action were unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
