Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96257 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.