Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Recall of an order passed on merits was held impermissible where the appellant had participated through counsel, advanced submissions, and was effectively on notice; the plea of non-impleadment, absence of notice and denial of hearing was rejected because no apparent procedural flaw attributable to the Tribunal was shown. The Tribunal held that recall cannot be used to reopen a merits-based order after hearing. The separate appeal against the original order was also held time-barred under the IBC, and exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was denied because the recall and writ proceedings could not be used to bypass the statutory appeal period. The delay condonation plea was rejected.
Recall of an order passed on merits was held impermissible where the appellant had participated through counsel, advanced submissions, and was effectively on notice; the plea of non-impleadment, absence of notice and denial of hearing was rejected because no apparent procedural flaw attributable to the Tribunal was shown. The Tribunal held that recall cannot be used to reopen a merits-based order after hearing. The separate appeal against the original order was also held time-barred under the IBC, and exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was denied because the recall and writ proceedings could not be used to bypass the statutory appeal period. The delay condonation plea was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
