Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 4881 
