Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3101 to 3120 of 96510 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 4826 
Join Channel 
