Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A vehicle manufactured in April 2008, registered in the United Kingdom before import, was treated as a new car because the foreign registration was only a technical requirement for movement from the showroom to the port. Applying CBEC Circular No. 1/2005-Customs and the ruling in Rahul Bhandare, CESTAT held that the concessional benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was rightly extended. Once the import was accepted as that of a new car, confiscation-related proceedings against the vehicle could not survive, and the redemption fine under section 125 was deleted.
A vehicle manufactured in April 2008, registered in the United Kingdom before import, was treated as a new car because the foreign registration was only a technical requirement for movement from the showroom to the port. Applying CBEC Circular No. 1/2005-Customs and the ruling in Rahul Bhandare, CESTAT held that the concessional benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was rightly extended. Once the import was accepted as that of a new car, confiscation-related proceedings against the vehicle could not survive, and the redemption fine under section 125 was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.