Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
