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 CESTAT held that the Department failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the alleged misdeclaration of quantity, grade, and value of imported Mace to evade customs duties. The non-supply of the relied-upon Bill of Entry and lacunae in the analytical report on the grade of goods were fatal to the Department's case. The onus to prove that the declared price did not reflect the true transaction value is always on the Department. NIDB data cannot be directly applied unless the value falls within the parameters of identical or similar goods u/s 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules. The Department failed to establish by satisfactory methods that the declared value was incorrect. Regarding the excess quantity of 590.83 Kgs, the declared price should be adopted, and appropriate duty demanded from the importer-appellant. The re-determined value, fine, and penalties were set aside due to infirmities in the show cause notice and erroneous decision. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The CESTAT held that the Department failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the alleged misdeclaration of quantity, grade, and value of imported Mace to evade customs duties. The non-supply of the relied-upon Bill of Entry and lacunae in the analytical report on the grade of goods were fatal to the Department's case. The onus to prove that the declared price did not reflect the true transaction value is always on the Department. NIDB data cannot be directly applied unless the value falls within the parameters of identical or similar goods u/s 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules. The Department failed to establish by satisfactory methods that the declared value was incorrect. Regarding the excess quantity of 590.83 Kgs, the declared price should be adopted, and appropriate duty demanded from the importer-appellant. The re-determined value, fine, and penalties were set aside due to infirmities in the show cause notice and erroneous decision. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
