Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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.