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...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), imported goods and stored them in a licensed warehouse u/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. These goods were destroyed in a fire accident at the factory premises. Although the goods were insured for their value, the duty element was not covered. The insurance company settled the claim after determining the fire was caused by unavoidable circumstances. The department also recorded the destroyed goods. Despite the duty element not being insured, there was no negligence on the appellant's part. As per Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Notification No. 22/2023-CE dated 31.03.2003, when goods are lost, the question of demanding duty does not arise. The Appellate Tribunal, in a similar case, held that if the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that the imported goods have been lost, duty cannot be demanded. Since the fire occurred due to unforeseen reasons, the demand for duty is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), imported goods and stored them in a licensed warehouse u/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. These goods were destroyed in a fire accident at the factory premises. Although the goods were insured for their value, the duty element was not covered. The insurance company settled the claim after determining the fire was caused by unavoidable circumstances. The department also recorded the destroyed goods. Despite the duty element not being insured, there was no negligence on the appellant's part. As per Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Notification No. 22/2023-CE dated 31.03.2003, when goods are lost, the question of demanding duty does not arise. The Appellate Tribunal, in a similar case, held that if the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that the imported goods have been lost, duty cannot be demanded. Since the fire occurred due to unforeseen reasons, the demand for duty is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
