Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Consistent classification of MAMA zarda as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10 defeated a later attempt to treat it as zarda scented tobacco, because both the assessee and the department had treated it under the same tariff entry from 2012 to 2016; the duty demand, differential duty, interest and connected penalty were set aside. Rule 26 penalties also failed because liability to confiscation is a necessary precondition, and the order contained no actual finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. The separate penalties on the noticees were therefore quashed.
Consistent classification of MAMA zarda as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10 defeated a later attempt to treat it as zarda scented tobacco, because both the assessee and the department had treated it under the same tariff entry from 2012 to 2016; the duty demand, differential duty, interest and connected penalty were set aside. Rule 26 penalties also failed because liability to confiscation is a necessary precondition, and the order contained no actual finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. The separate penalties on the noticees were therefore quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
