Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
CESTAT ruled imported drawings and designs are correctly classifiable under CTH 49.06, not CTH 84.19. The tribunal determined these were original computer-printed drawings supplied separately from the ETP equipment, relating to post-import activities. The value should not be included in ETP's assessable value u/r 10(1)(b)(iv) of Customs Valuation Rules. The drawings qualified for duty exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus at nil rate. Revenue's contention that drawings constituted pre-import activity was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld and Revenue's appeal dismissed. The classification decision turned on the independent nature of the drawings rather than their connection to subsequently imported equipment.
CESTAT ruled imported drawings and designs are correctly classifiable under CTH 49.06, not CTH 84.19. The tribunal determined these were original computer-printed drawings supplied separately from the ETP equipment, relating to post-import activities. The value should not be included in ETP's assessable value u/r 10(1)(b)(iv) of Customs Valuation Rules. The drawings qualified for duty exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus at nil rate. Revenue's contention that drawings constituted pre-import activity was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld and Revenue's appeal dismissed. The classification decision turned on the independent nature of the drawings rather than their connection to subsequently imported equipment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.