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 failed to declare the actual MRP before Customs and sold the imported goods at a higher MRP, evading appropriate customs duty. The CESTAT remanded the matter for quantifying the differential duty payable. The Adjudicating Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by considering issues already decided by the CESTAT. However, it correctly quantified the differential duty based on evidence of higher sales MRP after providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant. Selling goods at higher MRPs than declared to Customs constitutes a violation, warranting differential duty and penalties. The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's contrary findings while upholding the quantification of differential duty demand.
The appellant failed to declare the actual MRP before Customs and sold the imported goods at a higher MRP, evading appropriate customs duty. The CESTAT remanded the matter for quantifying the differential duty payable. The Adjudicating Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by considering issues already decided by the CESTAT. However, it correctly quantified the differential duty based on evidence of higher sales MRP after providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant. Selling goods at higher MRPs than declared to Customs constitutes a violation, warranting differential duty and penalties. The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's contrary findings while upholding the quantification of differential duty demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.