Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 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" ?
CESTAT Kolkata held that violation of principles of natural justice occurred due to non-passing of a speaking order u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection of the declared value without reasons or evidence was deemed improper. The Proper Officer failed to pass a speaking order for enhancement of declared value within the specified timeframe, rendering the enhanced value unsustainable. The adjudicating authority did not provide reasons for rejecting the transaction value u/s 17(5). Consequently, the declared value by the respondent was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
CESTAT Kolkata held that violation of principles of natural justice occurred due to non-passing of a speaking order u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection of the declared value without reasons or evidence was deemed improper. The Proper Officer failed to pass a speaking order for enhancement of declared value within the specified timeframe, rendering the enhanced value unsustainable. The adjudicating authority did not provide reasons for rejecting the transaction value u/s 17(5). Consequently, the declared value by the respondent was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
