Unregistered profit-sharing agreements cannot justify occupation of corporate debtor premises during CIRP; repossession by the Resolution Professional...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2981 to 3000 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT determined specifications, drawings and designs supplied by Company M during request for quotations (RFQ) do not constitute additional consideration for sale under Central Excise Act and Valuation Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that for elements to qualify as consideration under Contract Act, they must be provided at promisor's desire, which wasn't the case here. The documents were merely articulation of Company M's requirements to elicit proposals, not consideration flowing from promisee to promisor. Following precedent in similar cases, CESTAT held such technical documentation supplied free of cost cannot be included in assessable value for excise duty calculation. Appeal allowed with impugned order set aside.
CESTAT determined specifications, drawings and designs supplied by Company M during request for quotations (RFQ) do not constitute additional consideration for sale under Central Excise Act and Valuation Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that for elements to qualify as consideration under Contract Act, they must be provided at promisor's desire, which wasn't the case here. The documents were merely articulation of Company M's requirements to elicit proposals, not consideration flowing from promisee to promisor. Following precedent in similar cases, CESTAT held such technical documentation supplied free of cost cannot be included in assessable value for excise duty calculation. Appeal allowed with impugned order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
