Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
