Expenses for overseas film shooting treated as services availed outside India, so no reverse charge service tax liability; cenvat reversals and penalt...
Electricity consumptionbased clandestine production estimates under the repealed Central Excise Act found insufficient; demand quashed and appeals all...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6561 to 6580 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
