Jurisdictional sanction requirements bar reassessment when approval comes from an authority lacking statutory competence under the applicable framewor...
Recorded sales receipts cannot be reassessed as unexplained cash credits, eliminating the basis for consequential alleged commission expenditure addit...
Sufficient cause for delayed income-tax appeals requires bona fide diligence; unsubstantiated counsel illness and assessee inaction defeat condonation...
TNMM Segmentation Limits Transfer-Pricing Adjustments to Associated-Enterprise Transactions and Requires Turnover-Based Comparable Selection for IT Se...
Internal TNMM supports deletion of freight-forwarding adjustments where comparable non-AE transactions are separately identifiable and materially simi...
The appellant imported footwear with MRP less than Rs. 500 per pair, claiming exemption from additional customs duty (SAD) and countervailing duty (CVD). However, the exemption condition required the MRP to be indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself, which the appellant circumvented by merely stitching a removable cloth label. The appellant also failed to declare the VAT registration number as mandated. Consequently, the appellant was held ineligible for the exemption and liable to pay SAD, CVD along with interest u/s 28AA of the Customs Act. The goods were held confiscated u/s 111(o), and a fine of Rs. 25,00,000/- was imposed u/s 125. The extended period of limitation, penalty u/ss 112 and 114A equal to the duty amount for collusion and wilful mis-statement were also upheld. The appeals were dismissed by the CESTAT.
The appellant imported footwear with MRP less than Rs. 500 per pair, claiming exemption from additional customs duty (SAD) and countervailing duty (CVD). However, the exemption condition required the MRP to be indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself, which the appellant circumvented by merely stitching a removable cloth label. The appellant also failed to declare the VAT registration number as mandated. Consequently, the appellant was held ineligible for the exemption and liable to pay SAD, CVD along with interest u/s 28AA of the Customs Act. The goods were held confiscated u/s 111(o), and a fine of Rs. 25,00,000/- was imposed u/s 125. The extended period of limitation, penalty u/ss 112 and 114A equal to the duty amount for collusion and wilful mis-statement were also upheld. The appeals were dismissed by the CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
