Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) case involving valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value. The tribunal held that when the imported goods were numerous, only a few items were referenced without considering the importer's submissions. The grounds for value enhancement were not communicated to the importer, violating natural justice principles. The tribunal observed that the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, regarding transaction value for imports by related persons, were not properly applied. The original authority failed to examine the values against identical or similar items imported by independent buyers from the same supplier or other contemporaneous imports. The lower appellate authority's order setting aside the original order without determining the appropriate values created a vacuum. The case was remanded to the original authority to reconsider the issue afresh, adhering to natural justice principles and examining all relevant factors within three months.
Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) case involving valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value. The tribunal held that when the imported goods were numerous, only a few items were referenced without considering the importer's submissions. The grounds for value enhancement were not communicated to the importer, violating natural justice principles. The tribunal observed that the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, regarding transaction value for imports by related persons, were not properly applied. The original authority failed to examine the values against identical or similar items imported by independent buyers from the same supplier or other contemporaneous imports. The lower appellate authority's order setting aside the original order without determining the appropriate values created a vacuum. The case was remanded to the original authority to reconsider the issue afresh, adhering to natural justice principles and examining all relevant factors within three months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
