Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Methodologies for re-determination of CVD payable on imports on MRP basis - Imports of notebook / laptop computers - The tribunal found that there was no statutory mechanism under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, to redetermine MRP for imported goods once declared. The methodology adopted by the customs authority to redetermine the MRP by subtracting the locally procured laptop bag's cost from the total price was deemed inappropriate. The tribunal stated that this method was not supported by the Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008, nor was it consistent with principles laid down under the Central Excise Act. - The tribunal set aside the impugned order due to the lack of statutory provisions for MRP redetermination under the cited acts and rules, the inappropriate methodology used, and the unjust invocation of the extended period of limitation.
Methodologies for re-determination of CVD payable on imports on MRP basis - Imports of notebook / laptop computers - The tribunal found that there was no statutory mechanism under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, to redetermine MRP for imported goods once declared. The methodology adopted by the customs authority to redetermine the MRP by subtracting the locally procured laptop bag's cost from the total price was deemed inappropriate. The tribunal stated that this method was not supported by the Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008, nor was it consistent with principles laid down under the Central Excise Act. - The tribunal set aside the impugned order due to the lack of statutory provisions for MRP redetermination under the cited acts and rules, the inappropriate methodology used, and the unjust invocation of the extended period of limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.