Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT ruled that merely listing an inter-connected undertaking in Income Tax Form 3CD does not establish a "related person" relationship under Central Excise law. Without specific determination that the appellant and M/s Shree Vaishnav Ispat Private Limited were related under Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they cannot be treated as related parties for valuation purposes. The Tribunal cited precedents establishing that inter-connected undertakings are not automatically related persons, and valuation should be determined under Rule 10 rather than Rules 8 & 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT ruled that merely listing an inter-connected undertaking in Income Tax Form 3CD does not establish a "related person" relationship under Central Excise law. Without specific determination that the appellant and M/s Shree Vaishnav Ispat Private Limited were related under Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they cannot be treated as related parties for valuation purposes. The Tribunal cited precedents establishing that inter-connected undertakings are not automatically related persons, and valuation should be determined under Rule 10 rather than Rules 8 & 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
