Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
CESTAT allowed appeal concerning classification dispute of imported Aluminium Foil under Advance Authorization Scheme. Appellant imported raw material (Aluminium Foil 50 MIC +/-10%) under multiple authorizations, completed export obligations, and obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) from DGFT for all but one authorization. Following SC precedent in Titan Medical Systems, CESTAT held that Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemption under notifications post-EODC issuance. If violations were suspected, matter should have been referred to licensing authority rather than demanding duty. Tribunal confirmed appellant's entitlement to benefits under Notification 18/2015-Cus, rejecting customs authorities' reclassification-based duty demand.
CESTAT allowed appeal concerning classification dispute of imported Aluminium Foil under Advance Authorization Scheme. Appellant imported raw material (Aluminium Foil 50 MIC +/-10%) under multiple authorizations, completed export obligations, and obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) from DGFT for all but one authorization. Following SC precedent in Titan Medical Systems, CESTAT held that Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemption under notifications post-EODC issuance. If violations were suspected, matter should have been referred to licensing authority rather than demanding duty. Tribunal confirmed appellant's entitlement to benefits under Notification 18/2015-Cus, rejecting customs authorities' reclassification-based duty demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
