Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves mis-declaration of imported goods to evade customs duties. The appellant declared goods as 100% Cotton fabrics to misuse duty exemption under DFRC licenses, while actually importing 65% poly and 35% Cotton fabrics. The fabrication of documents was admitted, leading to evasion of customs duties. The invocation of extended period was deemed justified. However, the Show Cause Notice issued was held time-barred as it exceeded the 5-year limit u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. CESTAT held in a previous case that such notices beyond 5 years are invalid. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside.
The case involves mis-declaration of imported goods to evade customs duties. The appellant declared goods as 100% Cotton fabrics to misuse duty exemption under DFRC licenses, while actually importing 65% poly and 35% Cotton fabrics. The fabrication of documents was admitted, leading to evasion of customs duties. The invocation of extended period was deemed justified. However, the Show Cause Notice issued was held time-barred as it exceeded the 5-year limit u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. CESTAT held in a previous case that such notices beyond 5 years are invalid. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.