Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96262 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.