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" ?
The exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 could not be denied merely because the importer did not re-export the goods within the date mentioned in the DGH certificate, as the notification itself imposed no such time-bound condition. The Tribunal held that Condition No. 29 only required a DGH certificate confirming that the goods were needed for petroleum operations and imported under the relevant licence or mining lease; any additional re-export stipulation in the certificate could not override the notification. It further applied its earlier ruling that clearance to an SEZ unit after use amounts to export under the SEZ Act. The demand of duty, interest and penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.
The exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 could not be denied merely because the importer did not re-export the goods within the date mentioned in the DGH certificate, as the notification itself imposed no such time-bound condition. The Tribunal held that Condition No. 29 only required a DGH certificate confirming that the goods were needed for petroleum operations and imported under the relevant licence or mining lease; any additional re-export stipulation in the certificate could not override the notification. It further applied its earlier ruling that clearance to an SEZ unit after use amounts to export under the SEZ Act. The demand of duty, interest and penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
