Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Cold heading quality alloy steel wire in coils was held classifiable as alloy steel wire under CTH 7229 9090, not as wire rods under CTH 7227, because the imported product had undergone wire drawing and subsequent heat treatment and the department failed to produce technical evidence displacing the declared classification. On that basis, the Tribunal held that Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. remained available, so the differential duty and interest demand could not survive once the reclassification failed. Confiscation, penalties, and the extended-period invocation also failed because they were entirely based on the alleged misclassification and wrongful exemption claim, with no material showing suppression or wilful misstatement.
Cold heading quality alloy steel wire in coils was held classifiable as alloy steel wire under CTH 7229 9090, not as wire rods under CTH 7227, because the imported product had undergone wire drawing and subsequent heat treatment and the department failed to produce technical evidence displacing the declared classification. On that basis, the Tribunal held that Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. remained available, so the differential duty and interest demand could not survive once the reclassification failed. Confiscation, penalties, and the extended-period invocation also failed because they were entirely based on the alleged misclassification and wrongful exemption claim, with no material showing suppression or wilful misstatement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
