Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT ruled that royalty and technical fees paid by appellant to foreign supplier were not includible in transaction value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR 2007. While analyzing the technical assistance agreement, tribunal found only 9% of final product value came from imports. The agreement primarily covered technical personnel deployment for obtaining product approvals from Company H, with no direct connection to imported raw materials. Following precedents in Company B and Company BB cases, CESTAT held that absent clear nexus between royalty payments and imported goods as condition of sale, such payments cannot be added to transaction value. Differential customs duty demand set aside and appeal allowed.
CESTAT ruled that royalty and technical fees paid by appellant to foreign supplier were not includible in transaction value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR 2007. While analyzing the technical assistance agreement, tribunal found only 9% of final product value came from imports. The agreement primarily covered technical personnel deployment for obtaining product approvals from Company H, with no direct connection to imported raw materials. Following precedents in Company B and Company BB cases, CESTAT held that absent clear nexus between royalty payments and imported goods as condition of sale, such payments cannot be added to transaction value. Differential customs duty demand set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
