Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Valuation - Assessable value of import vessel - Revised Price - Initially, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was entered into with a declared Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) of 10,386 MT for a certain price. However, upon inspection at the time of import, it was found to be 10,200 MT. The appellant argued that they paid the revised price based on the actual LDT found on the ship, which was lower than initially declared. Citing legal precedents, including a Supreme Court case and a Tribunal decision, the appellant contended that the revised price should be accepted for customs duty payment. After considering the submissions and legal precedents, the Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order rejecting the revised value.
Valuation - Assessable value of import vessel - Revised Price - Initially, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was entered into with a declared Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) of 10,386 MT for a certain price. However, upon inspection at the time of import, it was found to be 10,200 MT. The appellant argued that they paid the revised price based on the actual LDT found on the ship, which was lower than initially declared. Citing legal precedents, including a Supreme Court case and a Tribunal decision, the appellant contended that the revised price should be accepted for customs duty payment. After considering the submissions and legal precedents, the Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order rejecting the revised value.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
