Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT treated the threshold question as one of jurisdiction: whether customs authorities and the Tribunal can determine disputes involving interpretation of IGST rate schedules on imports, given the separate appellate framework under the GST enactments. Noting conflicting views on the issue and examining the Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act and IGST Act scheme, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional conflict required authoritative resolution before any merits review. It therefore referred the formulated questions to the President for constitution of a Larger Bench and left the classification and rate dispute open.
CESTAT treated the threshold question as one of jurisdiction: whether customs authorities and the Tribunal can determine disputes involving interpretation of IGST rate schedules on imports, given the separate appellate framework under the GST enactments. Noting conflicting views on the issue and examining the Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act and IGST Act scheme, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional conflict required authoritative resolution before any merits review. It therefore referred the formulated questions to the President for constitution of a Larger Bench and left the classification and rate dispute open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.