Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under sections 114(iii) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant, a small-scale industry printer. The appellant had printed exercise notebooks for a third party without being declared as a supporting manufacturer in the EPCG license. The Tribunal determined that as a small vendor, the appellant could not reasonably be expected to know the export scheme details. The appellant's good faith was evidenced by proper payment of excise duty and accurate ER-1 returns. The Department failed to establish specific abetment by the appellant in any contravention committed by the principal exporter. Appeal allowed.
The CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under sections 114(iii) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant, a small-scale industry printer. The appellant had printed exercise notebooks for a third party without being declared as a supporting manufacturer in the EPCG license. The Tribunal determined that as a small vendor, the appellant could not reasonably be expected to know the export scheme details. The appellant's good faith was evidenced by proper payment of excise duty and accurate ER-1 returns. The Department failed to establish specific abetment by the appellant in any contravention committed by the principal exporter. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.