Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer was treated as classifiable under CTH 70051090, with the corresponding exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-CUS, because prior Tribunal orders had already settled the issue, including in the same importer's case. The Tribunal held that, in light of this binding precedent, the departmental challenge to the remand was contrary to judicial discipline. It also noted that the original authority, as a subordinate forum, had to re-decide the matter in de novo proceedings consistently with the settled classification and the factual findings to be recorded. The appeal was dismissed and the remand order was maintained.
Clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer was treated as classifiable under CTH 70051090, with the corresponding exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-CUS, because prior Tribunal orders had already settled the issue, including in the same importer's case. The Tribunal held that, in light of this binding precedent, the departmental challenge to the remand was contrary to judicial discipline. It also noted that the original authority, as a subordinate forum, had to re-decide the matter in de novo proceedings consistently with the settled classification and the factual findings to be recorded. The appeal was dismissed and the remand order was maintained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
