Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
