1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>SC Dismisses Civil Appeal; Upholds Customs Tribunal Order; Grants Exemption from Certified Copy Filing; Condones Delay.</h1> In SC, the court dismissed the civil appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order from the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... Valuation of imported goods - related party transactions - addition of 5% royalty on carbon brushes under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - it was held by CESTAT that 'In the present appeal, the facts have clearly proved that the pricing was at armβs length and the relationship had not influenced the price, which has been accepted by the department hence there is no question of adding the royalty to the transaction value.' HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Appeal dismissed. In the Supreme Court judgment, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan, the court addressed several procedural matters and the merits of a civil appeal. The court granted the application seeking an exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned order and condoned the delay in filing. Upon reviewing the arguments presented by Mr. N. Venkataraman, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant, and examining the materials on record, the court found 'no reason to interfere with the impugned order' issued by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Consequently, the Civil Appeal was dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.