Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 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 
