Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
CESTAT determined that sales tax/VAT amounts retained by appellant under state government's deferment scheme must be included in transaction value for computing central excise duty under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. This follows established precedent regarding inclusion of retained tax portions in assessable value. However, extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified as department failed to prove suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. Issue involved legal interpretation rather than deliberate evasion. Final ruling confirmed demand for normal period with interest and cum-duty benefit, without penalties. Extended period demand was set aside. Matter concerned tax retention under state concession scheme and its treatment under central excise valuation.
CESTAT determined that sales tax/VAT amounts retained by appellant under state government's deferment scheme must be included in transaction value for computing central excise duty under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. This follows established precedent regarding inclusion of retained tax portions in assessable value. However, extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified as department failed to prove suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. Issue involved legal interpretation rather than deliberate evasion. Final ruling confirmed demand for normal period with interest and cum-duty benefit, without penalties. Extended period demand was set aside. Matter concerned tax retention under state concession scheme and its treatment under central excise valuation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
