Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
A typographical discrepancy between e-way bill particulars and tax invoices, where goods otherwise correspond with the e-way bill and transport documents, is treated as a human error when it provides no benefit and does not indicate tax avoidance. The notes state that such a minor inadvertent mistake, without intent to deceive the Revenue or financial implications, should attract only the minor penalty under clause 5 of the circular dated 14 September 2018, rather than detention and penalty action under Section 129. The Section 129 penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable minor penalty.
A typographical discrepancy between e-way bill particulars and tax invoices, where goods otherwise correspond with the e-way bill and transport documents, is treated as a human error when it provides no benefit and does not indicate tax avoidance. The notes state that such a minor inadvertent mistake, without intent to deceive the Revenue or financial implications, should attract only the minor penalty under clause 5 of the circular dated 14 September 2018, rather than detention and penalty action under Section 129. The Section 129 penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable minor penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
