Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Customs duty was not payable on supplies alleged to have been made to an SEZ unit for authorised operations, because the statutory SEZ scheme overrode the demand and the show cause notice did not allege use outside authorised operations. The Tribunal followed the SEZ-based exemption reasoning in the cited precedent and held the duty demand to be without authority of law; interest also failed because it depended on the same unsustainable demand. Penalty under section 114 was set aside because the alleged evasion vanished once no duty was legally payable. Penalty under section 114AA was also set aside because the notice did not propose that penalty, making its confirmation beyond the show cause notice.
Customs duty was not payable on supplies alleged to have been made to an SEZ unit for authorised operations, because the statutory SEZ scheme overrode the demand and the show cause notice did not allege use outside authorised operations. The Tribunal followed the SEZ-based exemption reasoning in the cited precedent and held the duty demand to be without authority of law; interest also failed because it depended on the same unsustainable demand. Penalty under section 114 was set aside because the alleged evasion vanished once no duty was legally payable. Penalty under section 114AA was also set aside because the notice did not propose that penalty, making its confirmation beyond the show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.