Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Prior to the amendment of section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act effective from 16.08.2024, the Customs Act provisions on interest, offences and penalties did not apply to IGST leviable under section 3(7). Applying the Bombay HC rulings in A.R. Sulphonates and Mahindra & Mahindra, the Tribunal held that interest, redemption fine and penalty for the period governed by the unamended provision were without authority of law. The impugned order was therefore set aside to that extent. The confirmation and recovery of IGST itself was not disturbed and was upheld.
Prior to the amendment of section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act effective from 16.08.2024, the Customs Act provisions on interest, offences and penalties did not apply to IGST leviable under section 3(7). Applying the Bombay HC rulings in A.R. Sulphonates and Mahindra & Mahindra, the Tribunal held that interest, redemption fine and penalty for the period governed by the unamended provision were without authority of law. The impugned order was therefore set aside to that extent. The confirmation and recovery of IGST itself was not disturbed and was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.