Supreme Court held that insurers impleaded as parties can raise all grounds, including quantum challenges. It remitted the case for fresh consideration by the High Court.
The issue was whether delay beyond three months barred conversion of shipping bills. The Tribunal held that circular-imposed time limits are not binding and allowed amendment to grant substantive benefits.
The issue was whether missing country-of-origin markings could deny duty exemption. The Tribunal held that valid documents and identifiable goods suffice, allowing exemption.
The SC upheld that reinsurance premiums paid to foreign entities are not taxable in India. It confirmed that absence of income accrual and PE eliminates TDS liability.
The High Court held that reinsurance premiums paid to non-residents are not taxable in India and no TDS is required. It upheld Tribunal findings and rejected Revenue’s challenge across multiple years.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal due to unexplained delay and upheld the finding that the reassessment notice was time-barred. The key takeaway is strict adherence to limitation timelines.
The Court held that reassessment cannot be initiated after expiry of the limitation period under the old regime. The notice issued after six years was declared invalid.
The case addressed whether penalty can be imposed without proof of foreign origin. The Tribunal ruled that mere suspicion or trader opinion is insufficient. It set aside penalty due to lack of evidence.
The Court dismissed the appeal after finding that all issues were already settled by earlier rulings. It held that no new question of law arose and affirmed the Tribunal’s order.
CESTAT held that demand based on disclosed records cannot invoke extended limitation. It set aside entire tax demand due to lack of intent to evade.
