Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 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" ?
Extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked where the bill of entry disclosed the tariff item and described the imported software CD as relatable to the LRSAM system, and the show cause notice relied only on an allegation of misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period requires a deliberate misstatement or suppression made with intent to evade duty, and that intent was not established, particularly given the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking engaged in defence supplies. As the demand rested entirely on the extended period, it failed. The consequential penalty under section 114A also failed because its foundation was the same as the extended-period allegation.
Extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked where the bill of entry disclosed the tariff item and described the imported software CD as relatable to the LRSAM system, and the show cause notice relied only on an allegation of misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period requires a deliberate misstatement or suppression made with intent to evade duty, and that intent was not established, particularly given the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking engaged in defence supplies. As the demand rested entirely on the extended period, it failed. The consequential penalty under section 114A also failed because its foundation was the same as the extended-period allegation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
