Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 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" ?
Preferential duty exemption under SAFTA was upheld where the certificates of origin, later verified by Bangladesh authorities, were confirmed as correct and could not be disregarded on a unilateral assumption about the origin of the goods. The Tribunal also rejected selective retesting and extrapolation of a few later laboratory results to all consignments, finding the method legally untenable and inconsistent with the original reports. It further held that the extended period of limitation was unavailable because the import documents had been disclosed at clearance and no suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion was proved. The objection that recovery proceedings were invalid for want of a departmental appeal against self-assessed bills of entry was also rejected.
Preferential duty exemption under SAFTA was upheld where the certificates of origin, later verified by Bangladesh authorities, were confirmed as correct and could not be disregarded on a unilateral assumption about the origin of the goods. The Tribunal also rejected selective retesting and extrapolation of a few later laboratory results to all consignments, finding the method legally untenable and inconsistent with the original reports. It further held that the extended period of limitation was unavailable because the import documents had been disclosed at clearance and no suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion was proved. The objection that recovery proceedings were invalid for want of a departmental appeal against self-assessed bills of entry was also rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
