Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
CESTAT ruled that sale of capital goods within a 100% EOU to an overseas buyer without physical removal does not constitute deemed debonding requiring customs duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership transfer alone doesn't trigger duty liability - physical removal is the taxable event for warehoused goods. Since no physical movement occurred outside the EOU premises and no explicit deeming provision exists for treating sale as removal, no duty was payable. Additionally, proper verification by Central Excise authorities during EOU scheme exit precluded invocation of extended limitation period or penalties. The Tribunal set aside the demand, holding that mere transfer of ownership without actual removal cannot attract customs duty liability under existing legal framework.
CESTAT ruled that sale of capital goods within a 100% EOU to an overseas buyer without physical removal does not constitute deemed debonding requiring customs duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership transfer alone doesn't trigger duty liability - physical removal is the taxable event for warehoused goods. Since no physical movement occurred outside the EOU premises and no explicit deeming provision exists for treating sale as removal, no duty was payable. Additionally, proper verification by Central Excise authorities during EOU scheme exit precluded invocation of extended limitation period or penalties. The Tribunal set aside the demand, holding that mere transfer of ownership without actual removal cannot attract customs duty liability under existing legal framework.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
