Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1341 to 1360 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Extended limitation was held applicable because the investigation materials showed wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, including diversion of duty-free imports, use of an incorrect export code, and alleged manipulation of export documentation. The plea that the discrepancy was merely clerical was rejected, and the show cause notice was treated as timely. The requirement of pre-deposit was also upheld as reasonable because the appellants could not rely on parity with an earlier order involving different facts and limited bills of entry. On that basis, the direction to deposit amounts and the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance were sustained.
Extended limitation was held applicable because the investigation materials showed wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, including diversion of duty-free imports, use of an incorrect export code, and alleged manipulation of export documentation. The plea that the discrepancy was merely clerical was rejected, and the show cause notice was treated as timely. The requirement of pre-deposit was also upheld as reasonable because the appellants could not rely on parity with an earlier order involving different facts and limited bills of entry. On that basis, the direction to deposit amounts and the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance were sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.